Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It's a start. Now maybe work on your spelling.
a single tear rolls down my cheek.
It's a start. Now maybe work on your spelling.
Again these men are not murderers. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried and convicted. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality. Those poor shop owners did not meet that definition of that legal technicality. The fact they have an open and shut case that they shot the burglar but did not have a trial and did not even attempt to plea bargain proves that what these shop owners did was not murder.
No, I'm NOT ignoring it. Are you reading what I write, or are you just cherry picking and then making up the rest? I have said, please read because this is getting annoying, the people is cause enough for concern. That it was grounds to bring lawsuit against McDonald's and that it is fine to take them to court because of it. The woman did have valid reason to go to court. I even previously state (near to when we got on this tangent) that I would not have absolved McDonald's completely of wrong doing. There would be no market response since the probability of this happening was in the noise, you can use the courts to force the response. That's not a bad thing. I need you to pay attention, to read, and to think because some of you more emotional type seem to believe I'm saying something I'm not.
The absolute value is fine, it too has information and was pertinent to the court case as it demonstrated that McDonald's has known that at least on rare occasion their coffee was so hot that it could cause significant damage. I'm not ignoring that number. My contention was the initial award because that was completely out of line with the rest of the case. The judge had to in a sense "fix" it. That number was an emotional response, not a rational decision. A jury must above all be rational. And it is in this last and final stage in which that probability is really going to come into play. It does have information, and it does have information that is related to LIABILITY. And that's what these courts try to decide, yes? So it's not beside the point. Some people are spouting problem with flimsy lid or whatever. Is it a problem? Is it McDonald's fault? This is where that ratio is really becoming important because it can demonstrate fault. But what that ratio said is that there was no structural problem with the cup/lid and that the vast majority of people are able to consume McDonald's coffee unharmed. There were limited reports of people burning themselves, it's in the noise. So rationally, do you believe that McDonald's should have moved, that it should have had some form of market response to the noise? No, it's not reasonable to assume that. Therefore, while McDonald's does bear fault because they did now that on RARE occasion people burned themselves, it is unreasonable given the occurrence of that related to the amount of coffee sold that they would on their own change that behavior. Furthermore it demonstrates that the burn rate is dominated by operator, not equipment.
See how both come in? See how I'm using both, not ignoring one? This is assimilation of data into a logical and reasonable argument process. This is what needs to go on. People need to think.
I'm not ignoring those 70 a year. I'm saying that because of the injuries sustained, that there are multiple cases of this happening; there is more than enough reason to bring this case to court. I do not advocate legislating away a person's ability to access the courts, nor limits on awards from juries; I believe the woman had ever right and reason to bring this to court, that McDonald's seriously f'ed up on this one. I even agree that McDonald's shares fault. Now I think because of the probabilities as stake here, it should have been clear that they hold the minority fault; but whatever. But we need to keep juries rational, instruct them well, tell them to think. My contention is that we are losing rational thought in the process, and the original McDonald's award is proof positive of that. Damages were 10,500. McDonald's rationally should have had to share a fraction of that. What we got instead was emotional response by the jury to the tune of what was it like 2 million or something? It can't be excused. You can't get that value from 10,500.
Do you understand what I am saying now? When Texas passed (was it Texas? I think so) the loser pays law; I spoke out against it. I think it is absurd and damaging to the system. I like the system, I like the jury standard. I want to maintain the system at the high standard it deserves. But it requires rational, logical, emotionless thought. That is essential to weigh fact and fiction and to quantify a case; even more so in criminal case when jury needs to weigh crime and law together. What makes me mad is that I do believe that lawyers currently monkey with the system to produce the exact opposite. It may be the procedure is the same as always, but I think the intent has most certainly changed on the behalf of lawyers. If I were to advocate anything, it would be in this dynamic to limit how much lawyers can engineer juries.
You're being disingenuous. What they did does meet the legal definition of murder. I've pointed out specifically why that is, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise using the facts we have available and the statutes at issue. I've asked you to do this several times now, and you've failed entirely each and every time. I've pointed out repeatedly that relying on the grand jury decision is dubious at best, and you have yet to address that point. So, either argue the facts and the law, or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
fortunately, the court disagreed with you. slice it anyway you like, can't escape that FACT. you just have your panties in a wad because you disagree with their decision. deal with it.
fortunately, the court disagreed with you. slice it anyway you like, can't escape that FACT. you just have your panties in a wad because you disagree with their decision. deal with it.
You're being disingenuous. What they did does meet the legal definition of murder. I've pointed out specifically why that is, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise using the facts we have available and the statutes at issue. I've asked you to do this several times now, and you've failed entirely each and every time. I've pointed out repeatedly that relying on the grand jury decision is dubious at best, and you have yet to address that point. So, either argue the facts and the law, or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
If what these men did was a murder then why no criminal trial? Why are these men not sitting behind bars Are you trying to argue that they just didn't feel like it? They most certainly have evidence,confession,witnesses and motivation that one of the shop owners shot the burglar.It is a open and shut case they shot the burglar, if this went to trail it would be the most perfect slam dunk case for the prosecutor. You are telling me that they just ignore murder in Colorado?
The court did not disagree. One grand jury disagreed, and after a full trial, another jury found that it was not self defense.
This is the last time I'm going to say this:
I am challenging you to demonstrate to me using the facts that we have available and the statutes at issue that what these men did was not murder. No more appeals to authority. They are wearing thin, and I've already pointed out many, many times why this particular authority is not particularly useful.
I've provided you with the relevant statutes. Us the facts and the law to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
fact: they were not convicted, they are not murderers. your OPINION to the contrary is irrelevent
and, surprise, surprise, you are wrong again. all the civil jury found was that they were in some way liable for his death. NOT that it wasn't self defense.
and, surprise, surprise, you are wrong again. all the civil jury found was that they were in some way liable for his death. NOT that it wasn't self defense.
Right. So you've refused my challenge. Way to stand up for fail.
I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying that it is beside the point when they knew that on average 70 people were getting seriously injured every year as a result of their too-high coffee temperature. That's the point that you are ignoring.
The jury had to determine whether or not it was self defense in order to determine liability. If it had been self defense, they wouldn't have owed this guys family a bunch of money.
what challenge?
Your argument is just plain stupid, I'm sorry there is no other word for it. Any company in the world from the biggest to the smallest, would be awarded so many safety awards for an accident rate of .000007% that it isn't even funny. Any product produced anywhere in the world would be considered safe by anyone's standard. Well anyone but a liberal that is.
Lets Compare that same rate to auto deaths, there are roughly 305 million people in the US @ .000007 that would end up being 2135 deaths per year. Yet the actual number of deaths in the US by auto is over 40,000 So you are nearly 20 times safer drinking coffee from McDonald's then you are getting into your car to go and get a cup.
Only, and I repeat, only in a liberal mind could McDonald's be considered negligent in any way shape or form. If only liberals would ever admit that sometimes people just do stupid things. But no according to the liberal mind, someone else is always at fault, and people don't have to take responsibility for anything they do.
again, that is just your opinion.
you have no idea why the jury decided to give the family money.
maybe they felt sorry for the little girl. maybe the defendents reminded them of the guys who picked on them in 3rd grade.
Those property owners were not found guilty in a criminal court by a jury. Criminal trials must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials require the preponderance of the evidence(more probable than not), which basically means the evidence for it is much significantly lower than the evidence that is required for beyond a reasonable doubt conviction.
Your argument is just plain stupid, I'm sorry there is no other word for it. Any company in the world from the biggest to the smallest, would be awarded so many safety awards for an accident rate of .000007% that it isn't even funny. Any product produced anywhere in the world would be considered safe by anyone's standard. Well anyone but a liberal that is.
Lets Compare that same rate to auto deaths, there are roughly 305 million people in the US @ .000007 that would end up being 2135 deaths per year. Yet the actual number of deaths in the US by auto is over 40,000 So you are nearly 20 times safer drinking coffee from McDonald's then you are getting into your car to go and get a cup.
Only, and I repeat, only in a liberal mind could McDonald's be considered negligent in any way shape or form. If only liberals would ever admit that sometimes people just do stupid things. But no according to the liberal mind, someone else is always at fault, and people don't have to take responsibility for anything they do.
Would you extend this opinion to murderers? Such as the defendants in this particular case?
again, that is just your opinion. you have no idea why the jury decided to give the family money. maybe they felt sorry for the little girl. maybe the defendents reminded them of the guys who picked on them in 3rd grade.
I have sat on civil juries where people wanted to rule in favor of the plaintiff simply because they didn't like the way the defendent looked.
one case. a guy jumped a fence and got bit by the neighbor's dog. he sued the neighbor. clearly it was his own damn fault for jumping over the fence. yet there were several people on the jury who wanted to give him some $$$ because they were afraid of dogs or had been bitten by a dog once.
I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?