Remember that girls ran away when asked if anyone was there. I don't see that from the article, does this come from another source? The closest the article had to this:
But Young said she was frightened because the two had knocked on her door at about 10:30 p.m. and run off after leaving the cookies.
What I take from that is that they put the cookies on the porch, knocked (probably just to get the ladies attention to open the door and find the cookies), and then left. Kind of like my UPS guy does. It doesn't say that they ran when they were challenged, or ran when she asked who was there or anything like that, it simply implies that they knocked and left without waiting around. Happens to me all the time when I'm getting a package delivered.
It's difficult to speculate without knowing all of the facts, and it seems less then charitable to atribute it to malice. I would agree except that the case ended up in court and she was seeking punitive damages. If she was just seeking medical costs I would agree that there was no malice or greed involved, but whenever I see cases such as this where she runs to court to seek more than she is entitled to, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that she was seeing dollar signs right from the beginning. This to me makes her seem like the people who are involved in extremely minor auto accidents, and all of a sudden start complaining of neck and back pain when you know they are flat out lying to you and that they just want to try to milk a lawsuit out of the situation. And
that happens all the time. But as you said, I could certainly be wrong.
The next morning, since she was still suffering some symptoms that, given her age, certainly could have been a heart attack, she decided
to visit the emergency room. I'd be curious as to what her symptoms actually were, but I suspect that it was her anxiety that led her to believe she may have had a heart attack. There's really no way any of us can know unfortunately. I also wouldn't be surprised if she has a medical history of anxiety disorder. I've run across some of these people and it can be very hard at times for them to function normally in society, given that anything can set off their disorder. You can't blame the catalyst for triggering the disorder as you never know what will set it off. To me it seems like an asthmatic trying to sue a smoker for setting off an asthma attack. In any event, I'm not questioning whether or not should have gone to the ER, merely questioning her timing.
This is exactly what she should have done, given her symptoms. If you've ever spent time around the elderly, you'll notice that this sort of behavior is perfectly consistent for them. I don't know what her symptoms were, but I totaly agree that whatever they were, she should have gone to the ER (preferably immediately instead of waiting though). Still, I would hardly classify a 49 year old woman as elderly.
I disagree. If Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Jo Zellitte had not knocked on Wanita Young's door in the middle of the night and run away when she asked who was there, there would not have been a reason for her distress. Hence, there would not an anxiety attack, an ER visit, or legal action. Although there is nothing mentioned in the article about them running away when asked who was there, you've touched on my entire argument. What I'm arguing is that a woman with her (assumed) medical condition does not require a specific catalyst to trigger her disorder. What I mean is, any catalyst will do. For example, a raccoon rummaging through her garbage seems like it could set her off, or a branch tapping her window in the wind. In such an instance it isn't the raccoon that's to blame, or the branch and wind that are to blame, it is her medical condition that is to blame.
Back in 2001, the DC area among others was hit with an anthrax scare. I ran a call in the middle of the night during that time for a woman with a rash on her hand. The thing is, she was convinced she had been exposed to anthrax and was hysterical. There was no rational reason whatsoever to believe she had been exposed, but she believed it. She had some kind of anxiety disorder. If the rash hadn't set her off, something else would have. It was her anxiety disorder that was to blame for her believing she had been exposed to Anthrax, nothing more. Similarly I came into contact with a WTC survivor who since then was prone to severe anxiety attacks. Her friends never knew what could set her off, and to be honest she was barely able to function out in public anymore, but her attacks certainly couldn't be blamed on the numerous catalysts, they were merely a result of her disorder.
I'm just trying to emphasize that I believe we can't go around blaming other people for somebody else's medical problems. Those who have them have to live with them and take responsibility for themselves and their conditions, not go around holding others responsible for things that they can't possibly control. To me this whole things seems like the woman is refusing to accept her condition and the rammifications it has on her life, blaming others as a result. It further seems that the judge has reinforced this woman's belief, which to me would be the wrong message. That said, there's only so much any of us can really tell from such limitied information.
It seems clear, in my opinion, that her distress
was a direct result of having her door knocked on the middle of the night by two unknown persons who refused to identify themselves and fled when they were discovered. In my mind, that seems like a pretty direct relationship.
I'm certain that the previous break-ins made it reasonable for her to believe that her home was being broken into again. However anxiety disorders don't make people behave in reasonable manners. So even if it
seemed reasonable to her, that doesn't mean it was reasonable due to her condition. These people always believe they are being reasonable and rational, but sadly, that's not often the case.
As for the rest, just let me reiterate two things... She wasn't old, she was middle-aged at 49. Also, here's no evidence that they ran when challenged, merely that they didn't stick around after they knocked, which to me is two different things (not discounting that they in fact
may have ran when challenged, just pointing out that I don;t see that in the limited info we have).
Still, to me this is just another example of what seems to have become a judicially enforced "victim society", as opposed to a society where responsibility is accorded appropriately. However, since I don't know the woman, don't know the girls, and don't have all the info, I'm certainly open to the possibility that I have totaly misread the situation. But then again, if I had all the facts there would be little use in entertaining but otherwise pointless conjecture.
[ February 09, 2005: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
The relevant regulation seems to be Sec. 17-131 of Durango's city code. It only appears to apply to children under 16 (with some possible exemptions even from that group). 
