Robinhood Sued in Wrongful Death
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-kearns-robinhood-trader-suicide-wrongful-death-suit/
Comments
-
-
Supposedly the stories of stock brokers jumping out of windows in 1929 were urban legends. Didn't happen
This story is a sad tale of loss but the parents suing is part of the problem little Timmy had accepting that he fucked up only not as bad as he thought
It isn't always someone else's fault
In the financial markets everyone doesn't get post game orange slices
@PGOS -
Sadly this type of thing is nothing new. I’ve read stories about young people taking their lives over credit card debt. Absolutely tragic.
Do these parents have a case?
-
Not sure. Not my area, but wrongful death really does require some fault, and "I didn't know what I was doing" coupled with letting him do it ... eh. Maybe.Doog_de_Jour said:Sadly this type of thing is nothing new. I’ve read stories about young people taking their lives over credit card debt. Absolutely tragic.
Do these parents have a case?
It's not like letting a 10 year old drive on the highway. Is the hazard you created so reckless as to make a death reasonable foreseeable?
One of the other attorneys who actually try cases should answer. -
I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.
But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier. -
This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?GreenRiverGatorz said:I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.
But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.
Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while? -
Jesus, if you can’t critically think by age 20 that something is wrong then maybe life was not for him.
-
I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!creepycoug said:
This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?GreenRiverGatorz said:I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.
But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.
Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?
But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question
The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us. -
I'm not sure that's middle of the road, it's just common sense.RaceBannon said:
I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!creepycoug said:
This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?GreenRiverGatorz said:I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.
But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.
Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?
But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question
The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.
Too late to undo now, but having SS recipients actually receiving their own mandated savings from years prior makes a lot more sense than the convaluted ponzi scheme we have now where the impending doom of insolvency is always around the corner of the next generational demographic shift. I'd imagine it'd be a hell of a lot simpler to administer as well. -
It would require a lock boxGreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not sure that's middle of the road, it's just common sense.RaceBannon said:
I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!creepycoug said:
This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?GreenRiverGatorz said:I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.
But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.
Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?
But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question
The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.
Too late to undo now, but having SS recipients actually receiving their own mandated savings from years prior makes a lot more sense than the convaluted ponzi scheme we have now where the impending doom of insolvency is always around the corner of the next generational demographic shift. I'd imagine it'd be a hell of a lot simpler to administer as well.
And that was the main reason I voted for Gore in 2000 - the lock box
Alas there is no lock box
