A father's Love and Rage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

Civil courts don't work on the same basis of reasonable doubt that the criminal courts do. For example, you could be tried for Murder 1, but if the prosecution doesn't prove that you fit the definition of Murder 1 beyond reasonable doubt, you would go free. It doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime, you just didn't commit Murder 1 by the definition of the law. This happens all the time here in the US as prosecuters try to over reach instead of going with a slam dunk conviction on lesser charges, i.e. Murder 2, manslaughter or involutary manslaughter. Civil courts, on the other hand, use more of a blanket term such as Wrongful Death to cover the whole range.

---

Ok, but how can multiple courts hold jurisdiction?
Here in Belgium, there is exactly 1 court for everything. What is the point of having overlapping jurisdictions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ok, but how can multiple courts hold jurisdiction?
Here in Belgium, there is exactly 1 court for everything. What is the point of having overlapping jurisdictions?

---

In criminal court, the state is the plaintiff, and the accused is tried for breaking the law. A jury must be convinced of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In civil court, one party sues the other for damages. A jury decides whether to award damages based on "the preponderance of evidence".

There are other differences, but that's what I remember off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

Well, we've already heard what you do with your empty beer bottles while you're driving, so please, tell us what you do on the wine. I'm intrigued...:)


Mick

---

I hang the corks from the brim of my hat and say "That's not a knife, THIS a knife!..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

I hang the corks from the brim of my hat and say "That's not a knife, THIS a knife!..."

---

"That's not a knife, that's a spoon...;):D" You call that a knife? This is a Knife! - YouTube Sorry no offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've heard about this before, with the OJ case.
Could someone please explain this to me?
How can there be 2 lawsuits for the same thing? If the legal court (or whatever it is called) has decided that the man has done nothing wrong, on what basis could a civil court then decide to convict for that same offense?

---

The best way to think about it is there are two distinct systems. criminal and administrative. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be arrested and tried for say killing someone while driving drunk and get off on a technicality but then the family can sue you civilly and you could get big money. It has nothing to do with guilt only you being responsible for causing harm. it's much easier to win in a civil court. Once lawyers get involved the truth doesn't matter much. It's how well the attorney can cajole the jury. In a criminal case it's not so much a case of the state proving the case as it is the defense planting a seed of doubt in just one jurors mind.

Ok even accepting that, if a criminal court gives an absolute 'not guilty', doesn't that also absolve him from the civil consequences?

No,the OJ debacle is a perfect example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMC45

There is a very good chance he will be "No billed" according to the sherriff. That would be nice. At a club up the road from me a man was punched one time. It killed him. Not hitting his head on the ground or a table. It was one punch and he was dead.

---

Ham Sandwich comes to mind. The Prosecutor can swing this any which way he/she sees fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddafinga

I used to bounce at a club for about three years, I've been in probably over a hundred bar fights. I used my jujitsu in every single one of them.

I agree that your brain doesn't function in a fit of rage. I completely agree with that, I've had that rage before in fact. But... training sort of allows you to remain calm and under control in similar situations because the hostilities are not as frightening our as foreign and your brain knows what to do on autopilot almost through countless repetition.

I still say the father did the right thing and his actions were totally excusable. And I do believe he was in a fit of blind rage.

---

I use the Force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Well.now that I am all grown up,I never get myself in those situations anymore.
Should an occasion like the days of old present itself ever again (unlikley) I only have two options,Run or hide:)

---

Right behind you!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

That is very true and it's how Police are trained these days. Doing the same routine over and over again so in a critical situation when your brain shuts down it's the training that you automatically fall back to.

Years ago the California Highway Patrol saw a couple of their guys in a shootout with a bad guy. Both officers were killed and they found that both guys had spent shell casings in their hands and no one could figure out why in the middle of a gunfight these guys were handicapping themselves like this. The answer was, during firearms training they had to police the brass at the end which they didn't like doing so as the training progressed (in the days of revolvers) these guys emptied the brass in their hands and eventually into their pockets and when these guys were in a fight for their lives that is exactly what they did.

---

Very sad day for the CHP, they did however cause police training to change .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Follow up.

More details have been released.

Apparently the father heard the daughter screaming. He ran up and found the assailant with his pants down. The father attacked the man then called the police asking for help and an ambulance. The police reported that the father was VERY distraught on the 911 tape and after they arrived and had not intended to kill the assailant.

The Grand Jury stated that Texas Law allows deadly force to be used to stop a sexual assault. So that ended it.

---

As do most other state laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ok even accepting that, if a criminal court gives an absolute 'not guilty', doesn't that also absolve him from the civil consequences?

---

It does not absolve, but normally makes it really really hard. Even more fun, for motor vehicle accidents (and similar things) in the state of Ohio, we have a "No Contest" Plea. It basically allows you to plead guilty because the fine is normally cheaper than actually fighting it and prevents the guilty plea from being used against you in the civil courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LameBMX

It does not absolve, but normally makes it really really hard. Even more fun, for motor vehicle accidents (and similar things) in the state of Ohio, we have a "No Contest" Plea. It basically allows you to plead guilty because the fine is normally cheaper than actually fighting it and prevents the guilty plea from being used against you in the civil courts.

---

So the injured party can still sue, right? But they can't use the fact that I pleaded guilty in their case? They still have to prove my guilt? I'm a bit confused by your legal system. I like ours here where we just kick people up the arse with a really big boot. We also like to put people in jail if the wildlife gets out of hand and kills their children, esp if they are of a 'weird' religion. You can't sue anyone here, either, it's just not the done thing, but it's legal to fight them in the street; for almost anything. It appears to be OK for the police to bash Aboriginals, too, but it's great that the police can investigate their own cases, and they're very tidy about the whole deal. Isn't law funny?

I think there are only two important things ever written about law. One was Plato's Republic, and the other was Kafka's The Trial.