Negligence and recklessness are, and have been covered by the reasonable man standard.
Any first year law student knows this.
Don't know why your trying to re-litigate long established law.
How Does This Happen....
- Thread starter THEIS
- Start date
- Status
Any first year law student knows this.
Don't know why your trying to re-litigate long established law.
The basis of tort law is making people whole for the misbehavior of others. Ideally, if there is no misbehavior there is no tort. Obviously there are flaws. However we aren’t talking about the consequences of the victims actions we are talking about the consequences of another parties actions.
If a criminal conviction is required for civil liability to exist the DA can prevent liability to the government or a member of the public or a donor simply by not obtaining a criminal conviction. It would be a great way to make crooked DAs rich.
Okay, so we cannot agree to disagree. Here is where the mental atrophy comes from you and your ilk - consequences of another party. Never should someone be punished when another persons actions lead to their injury or death. Go back to the example of you walking into traffic and getting killed by a driver. Yes, the driver of the car killed you but would they be charged? Probably not as long as they did not do something to intentionally hit you. This has been my premise the entire discussion - if there are no criminal charges filed or someone found guilty then there should be no civil liability.
I do not disagree with your last point but that would get sorted out or more over sight could be used to determine culpability.
I’ve not claimed to have a law degree, but I have encountered this when a family member was prosecuted for a shooting. Mens rea is a concept that includes negligence and recklessness.
I asked about your law degree because you’re getting salty about qualifications.
I asked about your law degree because you’re getting salty about qualifications.
I’m struggling to understand why you can’t understand me. If you walk into traffic intentionally and are killed you are arguably the tortfeasor and your estate is liable for the damage to the car that struck you.
If someone shoots someone in a situation amounting to manslaughter and the prosecutor botched the prosecution, does no civil liability exist?
That was a page or two ago and liars always forget their lies
@RyanScott
It is too much pita to try to delete the parts of your post that dont relate to the clarity I missed somewhere, so, I post a screenshot. Continued below.
Is there some place in the U.S. where there is a law like this, no conviction, no civil liability?
It is too much pita to try to delete the parts of your post that dont relate to the clarity I missed somewhere, so, I post a screenshot. Continued below.
Is there some place in the U.S. where there is a law like this, no conviction, no civil liability?
No, not a claim to have a law degree. Rather a challenge to get you or whoever to undermine the claim that only police understand the law by acknowledging the authority of lawyers.
Because of course if I was asked where my law degree comes from the answer is of course that I don’t have one, but you’re right to look to lawyers and not police for legal knowledge.
I’ll remember you.
So since you're neither, perhaps you should STFU and stop your trolling?
Maybe, over lunch, invite your attorney to log on and participate.
J-huskey,
This is moving beyond law and into politics and structural issues. My complaint is that you make the DA the gatekeeper to a civil complaint. You now have no due process. It could save a fortune on all that training no one has to do because the DA won’t charge anyone so they have no liability for failure to train etc.
This is moving beyond law and into politics and structural issues. My complaint is that you make the DA the gatekeeper to a civil complaint. You now have no due process. It could save a fortune on all that training no one has to do because the DA won’t charge anyone so they have no liability for failure to train etc.
"I'll remember you" My creep meter just pegged.
I was a deputy for 15 years. Never even had a suit against me, much less one successfully prosecuted.
FWIW - Throwing out random terms you don't understand doesn't help your argument.
@RyanScott
Another screen shot:
Undermine ? Understand ?
The challenge you posit is not real clear in these past posts.
But, fwiw, I have a 37k lesson involving one no longer present, and 7 years from "the day" it started to the day a judge told the civil "filers" to fuck off.
And it went through a district court, a circuit court, and a federal court.
A number of your comments very successfully confused me. Sorry to interrupt your discussion with the others.
Another screen shot:
Undermine ? Understand ?
The challenge you posit is not real clear in these past posts.
But, fwiw, I have a 37k lesson involving one no longer present, and 7 years from "the day" it started to the day a judge told the civil "filers" to fuck off.
And it went through a district court, a circuit court, and a federal court.
A number of your comments very successfully confused me. Sorry to interrupt your discussion with the others.
Your insistence that Mens Rea only encompasses willful actions is misguided...
I remember people that call me a liar.
Undermine. When someone comments that you need to be an officer to understand the law I suggested that they should be asking about legal credentials rather than police credentials. The intent was to get them to acknowledge that police officers do not have a monopoly on understanding uses of force and related law. Ironically, no one wanted to acknowledge that.
No, no civil liability should exist because of no criminal prosecution. That is a caveat of our legal system, just like innocent people getting tossed into jail. If someone were to be found not criminally responsible BUT negligent then a civil case could happen. People should only be punished for what can be proven, hence due process. We have allowed civil cases like you are prattling on about to circumvent that process.
Willful actions are intentional. By definition, recklessness, and negligence, are not intentional.
Can there be an overlap? Sure.
If a driver blows through a pedestrian crosswalk and runs over granny, he had mens rea to disobey the traffic law, but not to kill grandma.
I learned the hard way, any pencil whipper (civilian or legal), with the right form, correctly filled out, and the filing fee, can file civil papers.
Once received, I did have a federal magistrate toss a few, and a circuit and district judge toss a few more. But, I also spent several months doing paperwork on a few others that a judge eventually dismissed.
This discussion reminds me all too much of the insanity of those several that took a few months to several years to get dismissed.
I will now go outside and shoot something, enjoying the fact, I'm not dealing with a pencil whipper who has nothing better to do.
Until one bullet goes over the berm and hits the loggers bulldozer, and the logger jumping off, breaks his ankle, and the neighbor complains the unmanned bulldozer pushed down his fence, and his cows got out, and then the ambulance coming for the logger hit his prize heifer, and the deputy coming to take the report hit his 25k stud bull, and then we have three needing transport, and the only ambulance just got totalled....
I think I just talked me into staying inside and reading more on Snipershide...
Once received, I did have a federal magistrate toss a few, and a circuit and district judge toss a few more. But, I also spent several months doing paperwork on a few others that a judge eventually dismissed.
This discussion reminds me all too much of the insanity of those several that took a few months to several years to get dismissed.
I will now go outside and shoot something, enjoying the fact, I'm not dealing with a pencil whipper who has nothing better to do.
Until one bullet goes over the berm and hits the loggers bulldozer, and the logger jumping off, breaks his ankle, and the neighbor complains the unmanned bulldozer pushed down his fence, and his cows got out, and then the ambulance coming for the logger hit his prize heifer, and the deputy coming to take the report hit his 25k stud bull, and then we have three needing transport, and the only ambulance just got totalled....
I think I just talked me into staying inside and reading more on Snipershide...
Now you’ve eliminated due process instead. You’ve also de facto replaced the civil rules with criminal court rules, barred plaintiffs from compelling the testimony of defendants and replaced the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil cases with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Wise...
Mens Rea includes intentional, knowledgeable, reckless and negligent actions as well. Typically. Your state may vary.
In scenario two, after the shots are fired, the ambulance totaled, my chest starts to hurt, the four of us get transported by private vehicle to the ER where the logger (intentionally) and I (unintentionally) create a disturbance, the injured deputy gets hurt worse trying to quell the disturbance, and I end up in jail, then sued by the logger, the neighbor, the deputy, the ambulance driver, the ambulance company, their insurance carriers, and the other three motorists who hit the other cows who got out...
This does not look good. ?
This does not look good. ?
As I said, there is sometimes overlap, but by definition an accident cannot be intentional.
You cannot have a guilty mind for something you didn't intend to do.
I am not gonna party with this guy.
Mens Rea doesn’t mean intentional. Look it up.
You should go back to school and understand what an inference is and take responsibility for what you said. Here is what I think of you and your veiled threats.
Use a legal dictionary. Findlaw has a good article. Hell, Wikipedia undoubtedly has something.
Goodbye.
LOL that’s not a threat. That’s just a promise that to me at least, for as little as it matters, you will always be remembered as someone not to take seriously. You probably feel the same about me.
I explained to you what mens rea meant a couple hours ago, when you were arguing about the reasonable man standard. Remember, when you called an attorney?
Maybe you can also invite an english teacher to your lunch date so you can brush up on reading comprehension.
I dont have to wonder, I put 37 years into that area.
The 4th classification is the least of them, its important, but, its the one most juries kick out....
I've even seen #4 on a suit with my name on it, I'm very familiar with it. "Dismissed"....
Last edited:
No response about what she said about the reasonable man standard.
Or did you not claim that one now?
Based on what you're saying, in lieu of having your body parts, a dead loved one alive again or something along those lines, a big pile of money makes you whole again.
Yeah, okay.
Point #2.
How reasonable is it for a lifelong (83 years old) drinker of coffee to understand that coffee is hot. Like 190* farenheit hot. Don't place the cup in your crotch...
Honey, don't touch that, it's hot. Don't put your hand in boiling water it will take the skin off. Don't touch the stove, it will burn you. Ad nauseum.
Stupid people will always try to blame their stupid mistakes on others and expect to be rewarded for their stupidity.
People like you encourage that behavior.
Why? Because it makes the lawyers very rich.
Aside from not having a way better than money, the economic losses involved are significant. At sentencing for the man who attempted to murder a friend of mine the court ordered $3m in restitution for actual economic damages projected as a result of her injuries, which have cost the government something like $2m in medical expenses for a total of $5m. Depending on the education of the decedent in the Dallas case (is he a CPA?) actual economic damages could reach into the lower edge of 8 figures.
I don’t think you or the department should have had any civil liability from that description.
Now, if you snagged the trigger on an MP5 and shot a prepubescent child in the head while you cuffed him, that’s a different deal. And it actually happened once, without charges.
Hi,
So let me see if I am following correctly @RyanScott, there has been way too many post for me to go back through them lol.
1. You had a family member/friend that was raped by a Cop?
2. You had $250k of lawyer fees waived on your case because lawyer messed up something for you?
3. You had a friend that someone attempted to murder them?
4. You have shot atleast 1 person in the USA?
Sincerely,
Theis
So let me see if I am following correctly @RyanScott, there has been way too many post for me to go back through them lol.
1. You had a family member/friend that was raped by a Cop?
2. You had $250k of lawyer fees waived on your case because lawyer messed up something for you?
3. You had a friend that someone attempted to murder them?
4. You have shot atleast 1 person in the USA?
Sincerely,
Theis
1. A deputy showed up at a family members house suspiciously and left abruptly when someone came home unexpectedly. Later that month he was arrested for rape. The sheriff believes his intentions in going to the family members house were nefarious.
2. No. My employer had $250,000 in legal fees waived because the lawyer had made an error which he explained was sufficient in his opinion to put him at risk for a malpractice suit.
3. More than one, but yes, a friend who works for the government was maimed during an attempted murder at her workplace.
4. Don’t bother asking. We aren’t talking about this.
PM me if you want some google search terms to look up 1 and 3 and agree not to share them with others.
You've spouted so much BS, even you can't keep up with it?
First you implied you had a law degree. Then you furthered that deception by wrongly claiming subpoena wasn't the term one poster was looking for.
Then you tried to say mens rea was what I meant when I told you the reasonable man standard was the benchmark for determining negligence.
Attorney or not, you're a shit-stirring troll who isn't even intelligent enough to keep up with the diarrhea that spews from your mouth.
You forgot the bystander who now has a severe case of PTSD...
You have it easy. Youre just talking to me. I have six of you talking to me.
I didn’t imply it although I see where the misunderstanding happened and I apologize for not being more clear. And subpoena is not the word. A subpoena is a process used in a proceeding by a party or counsel to a party. Until you’ve filed your case you will not be using a subpoena. Use FOIA or state equivalent instead.
You’d have to go back and get a quote for me.
You speak very directly for someone whose name is quietmike.
- Status
Similar threads
