or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 237

post #3541 of 6095
So neither of those cases apply to your made up hypothetical, great.
post #3542 of 6095
The court in that Hinson case said (and this is a very common articulation of the rule):
Quote:
Violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se only where (1) the plaintiff is a member of the class sought to be protected by the statute, and (2) the resultant harm is of the type sought to be prevented by the passage of the statute. U-Haul Co. v. White, 232 So.2d 705 (Miss. 1970).

So, is it a safety statute? Yes.

Is the plaintiff a member of the class? Cars are required to have reflectors on the back but not the front -- so you can see it at night. That doesn't work if it's parked backwards. So, yes.

Is running into a car because it was parked backwards a harm this is supposed to prevent? Absolutely.

I'd say the count is three to zip at this point. Where's your case--hell, where's your theory of the case? You still haven't articulated any reason why there'd be some special exception here.
post #3543 of 6095
You can say all you want, but you still haven't provided an example where this happened. You shot shit out of your mouth and thought everyone would just accept it but you're completely wrong. Keep proving your wrongness.

Ata 0, reality 1 billion.
post #3544 of 6095
Gee, I dunno, Harvey. That's not as good as a case. Speaking of cases, here's another one, from Connecticut:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1972624162Conn462_1584/BUSKO%20v.%20DEFILIPPO
Quote:
During the course of the trial, the defendant admitted that it was dangerous to leave his vehicle standing on the westerly shoulder of the street facing north, with the headlights facing southbound traffic. The court considered this testimony as a judicial admission and charged the jury that the defendant admitted violating § 14-251, as alleged in the complaint, and that the violation constituted negligence in and of itself. Whether this admission is a judicial admission or evidence to be considered by the jury need not be discussed, as the defendant assigns no error in this instruction.

[162 Conn. 466]
The court left the question whether this negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's damages for the jury to determine. The plaintiff relies heavily on Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 147 A. 762, in contending that the court erred in not charging that the violation of § 14-251 was the proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law.

The court correctly charged that the violation of the statute, although negligence per se, had to be proven to be a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's damages before she could recover.

That'd be four to nothing.

Plus, I don't type with my mouth. Do you?
post #3545 of 6095
This is why I hated Torts.
Duty of care and causation are separate issues. Negligence per se speaks to the former, not the latter.

Turk, isn't that what that last paragragh you quoted is talking about?

Anyone have BINGO yet?
Edited by lawyerdad - 12/11/15 at 6:29pm
post #3546 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Gee, I dunno, Harvey. That's not as good as a case. Speaking of cases, here's another one, from Connecticut:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1972624162Conn462_1584/BUSKO%20v.%20DEFILIPPO
That'd be four to nothing.

Plus, I don't type with my mouth. Do you?

That'd be 0 to a hundred billion. Please cite cases on point, not some shit you think matters.

You wrote say, not me, schmuck.
post #3547 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

This is why I hated Torts.
Duty of care and causation are separate issues. Negligence per se speaks to the former, not the latter.

Turk, isn't that what that last paragrapg you wuoted is talking about?

Yeah -- and, coincidentally, a reason you might get a peremptory instruction instead of a directed verdict. Just sayin'.
post #3548 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Yeah -- and, coincidentally, a reason you might get a peremptory instruction instead of a directed verdict. Just sayin'.
I don't disagree up to a point, but you do have to establish that the parking job was a proximate cause of the accident before you can get such an instruction.
post #3549 of 6095
This is what I meant when I said we don't seem to agree what a peremptory instruction is. In my understanding it's not just "you must find for the plaintiff on the whole case." It's any instruction that eliminates something a party is supposed to have to prove. You can get a "peremptory" instruction on the duty of care just by charging the jury in a way that doesn't require them to decide on the reasonableness of the alleged conduct in order to find liability -- but it can still require them to find the other the other elements of negligence (such as whether it occurred, whether it caused damages, etc.)
post #3550 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


If people took your advice, you would have less opportunity to get drunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

He'll be fine. There's shortage of divorces and kid-touchers.

Plus, not my area but I'd imagine the holidays are pretty joyous for someone with a practice like Harv's. The stress of the holidays exacerbates family discord and triggers psychologically screwed up kid touchers. In addition, cheating spouses are likely to get reckless a d get themselves caught as they try to accommodate their paramours' needs to feel like an important part of their life around special occasions, and Uncle Ernie type kid touchers will be awash in opportunities and temptations.
post #3551 of 6095
This is why we can't have nice (but slightly dangerous things) in America.

Put up a ladder and someone is going to come sue you because they failed to land the backflip they attempted from your ladder.
post #3552 of 6095
http://www.actionnewsnow.com/videoplayer/?video_id=11282&categories=1088


Accidental shooting. Why should cops be expected to have any trigger discipline? Totally ok to lie about it after the fact, too.

EDIT - Ah, the victim suspect was a white dude and probably drunk. So no movement will care.\\

DOUBLE EDIT - Watch the whole video. You can see fattie McCop searching the ground for his brass to cover up the shooting. What a fucking piece of shit.
Edited by Harold falcon - 12/12/15 at 10:13am
post #3553 of 6095
^ Enough with the white ressentiment bullshit. There's a huge groundswell against police violence in general (as well as against minorities in particular).

This video is fucking insane. Where's the "accidental" label coming from (I know the video is tagged as such)? It looks, uhh, non-accidental to me, but I know nothing about guns or trigger discipline or whatever.
post #3554 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

^ Enough with the white ressentiment bullshit. There's a huge groundswell against police violence in general (as well as against minorities in particular).

This video is fucking insane. Where's the "accidental" label coming from (I know the video is tagged as such)? It looks, uhh, non-accidental to me, but I know nothing about guns or trigger discipline or whatever.


Trigger discipline is day one learning to shoot. You do not ever put your finger on the trigger unless you are killing something.

This fat slob, who hates DUI drivers, got out of his cruiser on the 3AM shift (not the A-team) and pointed his weapon at someone. That's another thing you don't do. You never point your weapon at something you are not prepared to kill. Then his fatness got in his way and because he had his finger on the trigger in violation of rule fucking one he shot a guy who posed no threat to anyone.

The shooting was found to be accidental and the pig-fuck-cop was not charged. The pig-fuck-cop also lied about shooting the guy for days until the video surfaced that showed he clearly shot him. He was also searching the ground for the ejected cartridge, probably trying to destroy evidence that he had shot the guy.

EDIT -

Trigger discipline:

post #3555 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

The shooting was found to be accidental and the pig-fuck-cop was not charged. The pig-fuck-cop also lied about shooting the guy for days until the video surfaced that showed he clearly shot him. He was also searching the ground for the ejected cartridge, probably trying to destroy evidence that he had shot the guy.

Jesus.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?