It's really only $27M, also. There's no way the stalker guy has $28M to pay her, and the jury found him 51% responsible. (The article I read quickly didn't mention joint and several liability here, but the way it was presented was that the Marriott franchisee was responsible for 27M.)
As far as should she give the money away - hell no. She's the one who suffered. That is what the money is for. I don't even understand the argument that she shouldn't keep all of it if she wants to. If she wants to give some away, good for her. But I notice people only think giving money away is a good idea when it is someone else involved and someone else's money.
I'm not sure if people are following my point.
I never said she should give the money away... I said, if she did, people wouldn't speculate about whether or not she was in it for the money.
She deserves money, she has been through hell, and I'm sure she's not lying. However, people will speculate.
Of course she's not going to care about what people think. But when an already "rich woman" (relative to average female salary), walks away with this much money, there will be dumbasses claiming she's trying to capitalize on the situation.
This in turn makes, said dumbasses, more likely to dismiss other similar cases.
I'm not talking about Erin Andrews here. I'm talking about how people will perceive this, and use this perception to make ill-informed judgments in the future.
That's why it's a "shitty situation". She deserves money, she should take the money, but by doing so, dumbasses are going to label this as a woman capitalizing on the situation.
There's really no perfect answer here. She did nothing wrong, but until people change, I don't see how these types of judgments will get any better.