Deriving pleasure from the fallout she is experiencing, as a result of her actions, does nothing to make you look any better; and it undermines your first point, making it seem like a feigned gesture. If you truly hope that she will learn from her mistake, it would be best to wish that this will be a sobering experience for her, without getting a kick out of her misfortunes.
Well...sort of but...also, not really. You wrote:
It's not her schadenfreude. It's yours. She's the object of your schadenfreude. So I think you want to say that, in hoping that she'll learn from this, she'll be the one taking solace, not you.
I don’t see why she simply can’t be referred to as “chair tosser” with the omission of, “alleged.” That would be more accurate and it doesn’t require the use of her name. The inclusion of the term, “alleged,” gives the impression that there is no proof convicting her of said action. Anyway, not a big deal to me, I was just curious about the phrasing.
It's because she's been charged with a crime, but not yet tried and convicted (or acquitted) in a court of law. Imagine that she was for some reason coerced to throw that chair, perhaps under duress or credible threat of physical harm. Certainly those would be mitigating circumstances. But our best (but still at times flawed) way of determining these facts is through a judicial proceeding--e.g., trying the facts in court.
Yes, it used to respond to people crossing it, but not in a particularly satisfying way as best as I recall. A program may be more interesting.
