Online Dating! Don’t Say i didnt Warn You: A true life story

0

 When Mary Kay Beckman was looking for love, she went to
Match.com and met a man there named Wade Ridley. They went on
a few dates, but after awhile things weren’t working out, so she broke up with
him. A pretty common modern-day dating scenario … until it became anything
but.

When she broke up with him, he went crazy. And, according to KVVU-TV, one
night in January 2011 he stabbed her in the face dozens of times, smashed her
head with a rock, and stomped upon her face. Then he left for her dead.

Fortunately, she survived, but now she’s seeking justice, and it’s Match.com
that she thinks should pay. She’s filed a $10 million dollar lawsuit against the site because it
didn’t warn her that something  like this could happen.

before she was brutally battered

There’s no doubt Ridley was evil. Less than a month after attacking Beckman
he met another woman through Match.com and killed her. He was
sentenced to prison for murder where he later died.
But was the website responsible for telling her there are people out there
like that in the world? I don’t think so. Beckman’s attorney, Marc Saggese,
says the lawsuit is about “failure to warn”. He says Match.com
doesn’t offer any kind of warning about the dangers of dating, and people feel
a false sense of security.
“Match does nothing to ensure the safety of its people, but you pay
$30, you think you’re getting some type of protection,” Saggese said.

Really? I’ve never used Match.com, but I would think no such thing. It’s
online dating, and anyone can upload a profile. Just like any guy you meet a
bar could be a bad seed, so too could anyone you meet online be one. So yes, we
should remind ourselves and our friends that there are sick people out there
and to use caution, but Match.com no more owes a warning to customers
than a nightclub does
.
 It may be prudent in Match.com’s case to add a warning; it can’t hurt.
But it’s ridiculous to think that an absence of such a warning would have made
any difference in this case at all.

Do you think Match.com should have to pay in this case?

No comments