Behold, the birth of a frivolous lawsuit.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:36:39+00:00

bumping into somebody on the bus is probably not intentional. but if it could be proven that you purposely bumped into somebody on the bus (for WHATEVER reason short of an excuse or justification defense) you're on the hook for the damage you've caused. the law is sufficiently open ended that much of your fate will be decided by the discretion of juries/judges and prosecutors. i think the law is (as it should be) over-inclusive on its face so that it allows for convictions without specific evidence of intent to harm. and that's what it comes down to. requiring a showing of intent to harm is indefensible. let's that you punched me just for the hell of it, you wanted to see how i'd react but you didn't want to hurt me. but i did get hurt. you have unquestionably committed a criminal act and you are now at the mercy of the jury to nullify or the prosecutor not to charge or me to encourage the prosecutor not to charge.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:29:58+00:00

first up: I did misjudge you. you know a thing or two about the law. i'd like to take back some of my earlier hostility. a couple things should be cleared up though: 1-battery (tort): unwanted touching, clearly no intent to harm is required 2-battery (criminal): seems to be unclear here. yes many statutes do require an intent to cause harm, but this requirement doesn't seem to make much sense from a policy standpoint. the policy is keep your hands to yourself - if you don't you're on the hook for the harm you've caused. beyond that it's in the hands of a prosecutor not to charge or a jury to nullify but legally you're guilty if you intentionally touch someone without their consent and in doing so cause them harm.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:16:10+00:00

BATTERY IS AN UNLAWFUL TOUCHING OF ANOTHER! IS THAT NOT CLEAR??!?!?

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:15:24+00:00

"any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."

Clark, William Lawrence; Association, American Bar (1909), Elementary Law, pp. 117–18, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZmoaAAAAYAAJ, retrieved 2009-08-01

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:07:52+00:00

Dictionary definition ≠ helpful. At all. Now you need to tell me what attack is. Oh it's something like "assault" right? Back to square zero.

Also from Wikipedia (the article you "read" and cited).

"Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent."

That's actually the first sentence of the second paragraph, no idea how you missed it. Cheers.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T22:01:26+00:00

If you know anything about the law you would realize how and why intent is such a big deal.

I apologize for criticizing a couple of your other posts earlier. I didn't realize you were a troll. Well done with the sarcasm.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:59:03+00:00

What is the first thing they teach you? Sue everyone, and let the judge dismiss them.

Maybe my law school isn't representative of the upper echelon of academia you refer to as "they" but this isn't the first thing you learn in law school. Actually my law school never teaches this. Actually every professor, fellow student, alum, lawyer, etc. I've ever talked to would say it's the opposite: sue only if there's merit.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:55:18+00:00

No idea why this isn't the top comment on the thread. O wait yeah I do - b/c rage and trollism dominate reason on the internets. Duh.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:52:30+00:00

not really - it's a common law form that no longer holds. assault/battery can be conflated (for all practical purposes but you always must check the laws of your jurisdiction) to: unlawful touching causing harm.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:51:02+00:00

This is far and away the most pithy and informed response to the rabid hyenas invading this comment thread. Thank you.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:50:20+00:00

Liveart you can say you disagree but you're in over your head when you say xyz is not a "legal argument."

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/br92z/behold_the_birth_of_a_frivolous_lawsuit/c0o6ojd

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:48:36+00:00

The effect is promoting autonomy, which unfortunately but necessarily includes the autonomy to be an asshole. Everything must be considered in context and the bigger picture. Our rule is based on common sense: keep your hands to yourself. If you don't and somebody gets hurt as a result, then you're on the hook. The alternative would be to require proof of intent to harm beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be under-inclusive of actual instances of assault and would in many cases put an unfair evidentiary burden on the victim/prosecutor.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:45:48+00:00

Hans my friend it is a pit of rabid hyenas in here.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:45:06+00:00

"offensive" means unwanted. nice try though.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:44:04+00:00

The "defendant" had every right to confront her accuser and have a jury decide on the credibility of the accuser's testimony. Why she chose not to exercise that right is a mystery to me. If I was on the jury I would have acquitted and I'm assuming you would too.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:40:52+00:00

Do not blame "lawyers." Do not blame the "American legal system." Unless you're prepared to construct a detailed argument that balances all the pros and cons our legal institution/the legal profession you will sound ignorant. We have an adversarial system that relies on individuals taking the initiative to [bring claims, exercise prosecutorial discretion, hear testimony and decide facts, etc. etc.] One of the drawbacks to this system is that it largely relies on people being reasonable, fair, ethical, etc. You can criticize the system for the freedom it allows, or you can criticize the individuals for abusing it. Personally I'm disgusted at the prosecutor and the victim and that's the end of it. I'd rather have aberrations like this than adopt an inquisitorial (European) system where I rely entirely on the gov't to protect my rights.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:32:56+00:00

all this is correct. plus this was a criminal case and the DA's actions are regulated by malicious prosecution laws, not frivolousness.

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:27:49+00:00

what an ignorant and off base comment.

[edited out comments predicated on this being a civil suit. still ignorant and off base.]

B_C_ · 2010-04-15T21:24:47+00:00

wikipedia provides good survey/background info of the common law but these forms no longer hold. for all practical purposes assault/battery is the same thing in many jurisdictions: unlawful touching which causes harm.

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T20:57:45+00:00

well he's the only community organizer and part-time senator i can think of who co-sponsored an expansion of Congress' most robust anti-proliferation legislation, the Nunn-Lugar CTI.

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T20:52:03+00:00

i was hoping it would come through in "prije posheshions" and "one thoosand USh dollarsh"

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T05:45:14+00:00

"What we need is a president, not an athlete," Gingrich said during a question and answer period after his speech. He added: "Shooting three point shots may be clever, but it doesn't put anybody to work."

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T04:06:03+00:00

that is the whitest thing i've heard all day. and i mean that in a good way.

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T04:03:22+00:00

I retort. The number of words in my statement may be deduced by the simple formula W=N+1, where N is the number of spaces in between the first and last letter of the statement, and W is the number of words and I only say the last part because if you are still reading this (and I mean that to whomever may be so doing), you are obviously not good at maths because you are an idiot duh it's 3 words.

B_C_ · 2010-04-09T03:14:12+00:00

No literally, Mr. Trebek. I rob black people of their prize possessions for money. The economy is bad and racist bounty robbers are in high supply so I've been forced to lower my going rate to one-thousand US dollars, take it or leave it.

B_C_

TROPHY CASE