View Full Version : Score One for the Good Guys
swamper
10-31-2007, 07:47 PM
I did a quick search and didn't find this posted yet. I'm so glad something like this is finally happening to these animals.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story?track=rss
Good news that these disrespectful creatures got what they deserved in the end.
However, a compensation of 11 million $ is quite exaggerated.
Chulo
10-31-2007, 08:03 PM
Jury orders Westboro Baptist to pay millions to father of fallen Marine
Story by The Associated Press (http://www.49abcnews.com/staff/associated_press/)
Originally published 02:56 p.m., October 31, 2007
Updated 03:03 p.m., October 31, 2007
Baltimore — A federal jury has ruled that a fundamentalist Kansas church was wrong to picket the funeral of a fallen Marine in Maryland.
The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages to the family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. It found that the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka invaded the family's privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress when it demonstrated at Snyder's funeral last year. The protesters carried signs with messages like "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
The jury will now consider punitive damages. But the judge has already pointed out that the compensatory damage award is far more money than the defendants have.
Members of the small church routinely picket military funerals. They argue that U.S. troops are dying as punishment for America's tolerance of homo******ity.
In an opening statement Tuesday, Shirley Phelps-Roper compared church members to biblical prophets who sought to save doomed nations that had strayed from God.
Phelps-Roper is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. The church was sued by Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., over a protest at the funeral of his son in Maryland.
After the Westboro Baptist Church protested at his son's funeral, Snyder filed an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the church. He was also seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Snyder's doctor says he has health problems and trouble sleeping.
A number of states have passed laws limiting funeral protests, and Congress has banned such protests at federal cemeteries.
http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2007/oct/31/jury_orders_westboro_baptist_pay_millions_father_f/
good news since that "church" gives all Christians and mankind a bad nam
SkyUS
10-31-2007, 08:04 PM
Sorry but repost http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=122872
ZoneOne
10-31-2007, 08:04 PM
Only 2.9m compensatory damages.
Every penny is deserved.
Chulo
10-31-2007, 08:06 PM
lol.. just saw it on the news.. well mods delete pls
D-gin
10-31-2007, 08:07 PM
I hope more families start suing their ass.
tbk107
10-31-2007, 08:10 PM
The jury will now consider punitive damages. But the judge has already pointed out that the compensatory damage award is far more money than the defendants have.
Can he not go after them as individuals?
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5002/fan6e9eb3.gif
Chulo
10-31-2007, 08:19 PM
Can he not go after them as individuals?
i would reason that the actions they took were as a "church" and so are being sued as member / agents of that organization, so if the "church" is incorporated then the liabilities are limited when done in agent of that "church"
2Sheds_Jackson
10-31-2007, 08:28 PM
While I'd love to see the members of this bizarre sect be bulldozed into a landfill - I have some heartburn over millions of dollars being awarded over emotional distress. The last time I looked, it wasn't illegal to upset people. I think they should be forced to pay or give up something...it's just that millions of dollars like that looks more to me as if it's a political mechanism the government is using to kill a church that they can't get to any other way. Or maybe I'm just an asshole. I dunno, six of one, half dozen of the other.
Chulo
10-31-2007, 08:32 PM
While I'd love to see the members of this bizarre sect be bulldozed into a landfill - I have some heartburn over millions of dollars being awarded over emotional distress. The last time I looked, it wasn't illegal to upset people. I think they should be forced to pay or give up something...it's just that millions of dollars like that looks more to me as if it's a political mechanism the government is using to kill a church that they can't get to any other way. Or maybe I'm just an asshole. I dunno, six of one, half dozen of the other.
IIED (Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress) is actually a tort action
elements are
Intentional or reckless act
Extreme and outrageous conduct
causation
Plaintiff must actually suffer emotional distress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
so its on the degree of outrageous behavior and amount of damage done when upsetting a person.
Albatross
10-31-2007, 08:42 PM
Whatever it takes, the actions of this group is reprehensible. I hope this puts them so far down financially, they can not even afford to drive to the funerals.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-31-2007, 09:30 PM
so its on the degree of outrageous behavior and amount of damage done when upsetting a person.
Well ok - I can go with that, but it seems awfully subjective. There's a very long way between zero dollars, a hundred dollars and millions of dollars. If the everyday insults we all suffer are worth so little (essentially nothing) - how can this be worth so much? You'd think that if this paid out millions, I could get a couple a grand per week just for coming in here. :)
Whatever it takes, the actions of this group is reprehensible. I hope this puts them so far down financially, they can not even afford to drive to the funerals.
Wow, your tune has changed from all the lawyer bashing I've been reading out of you lately. Didn't you say the ABA were f**ksticks for saying the ddath penalty was flawed the other day? I guess you don't hate lawyers as much when its an issue close to your heart. As I have said many times - this is the usual behavior. People "hate" lawyers until they get the result they want then they love them.
For the record, I think IIED is a joke of a tort. I've looked at a few IIED cases and never taken one. They must have had a good jury. Not that there actions are reprehensible (because I think they are). It just shouldn't be actionable as a tort.
hank
Well ok - I can go with that, but it seems awfully subjective. There's a very long way between zero dollars, a hundred dollars and millions of dollars. If the everyday insults we all suffer are worth so little (essentially nothing) - how can this be worth so much? You'd think that if this paid out millions, I could get a couple a grand per week just for coming in here. :)
A couple of reasons. First this is intentional behavior and juries almost always give substantial damages for intentional behavior. Second, remember that the 2.9 was "compensatory" - meaning the plaintiff's put on some evidence of actual loss. I'm not sure exactly how they did that, but I'd be willing to bet that they claimed they'd need medical care (i.e. psych treatment) to get over this and got some expert to testify that it would cost $X over X years.
hank
Rictor
10-31-2007, 10:16 PM
The First Amendment just shed a tear. Just because they're pricks doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. Having seen videos of their rallies, they're far too extreme to draw any real support, so it's not even as if they're a threat.
To paraphrase Chomsky, if you're in favor of free speech then you're in favor of freedom of speech for people you disagree with and loathe. Otherwise, you're not.
Mastermind
10-31-2007, 11:20 PM
The First Amendment just shed a tear. Just because they're pricks doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. Having seen videos of their rallies, they're far too extreme to draw any real support, so it's not even as if they're a threat.
To paraphrase Chomsky, if you're in favor of free speech then you're in favor of freedom of speech for people you disagree with and loathe. Otherwise, you're not.
Well said...but, there are limits. To appear at the funeral of war dead and to do all one can to increase the grief of the family is far more reprehensible than say...well, saying "F__K You" on Captian Kangaroo childrens show....or giving a speech in the town square with children playing about how to commit felatio, complete with live **** models. The rule is you have free speech unless that free speech causes harm to others. If they had acted out their protests at my son's funeral after he had given his life for their freedom, and had caused such emotional crush to my dead son's mother, I can assure they would have lost far more than their dollars and cents. They are just fortunate to have met, at long last, a much more reasonable father.
Chulo
10-31-2007, 11:25 PM
The First Amendment just shed a tear. Just because they're pricks doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. Having seen videos of their rallies, they're far too extreme to draw any real support, so it's not even as if they're a threat.
To paraphrase Chomsky, if you're in favor of free speech then you're in favor of freedom of speech for people you disagree with and loathe. Otherwise, you're not.
you cant shout fire in a theater . The first Amendment protect most speech, but there are some other kinds of speech that isnt protected..
Rictor
11-01-2007, 01:21 AM
Look, let's be clear: I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. Their only value on this planet is the entertainment they provide. But that said, they were being merely offensive, not actually threatening. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre endangers lives; the only lives they're endangering is their own. I would much rather they have their asses kicked by angry parents than for the government to award damages for exercising free speech.
I guess I'm somewhat of a puritan when it comes to these things.
tyovan
11-01-2007, 03:53 AM
A US church whose members cheered the death of a soldier as "punishment" for the nation's sins has been ordered to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.
The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006.
The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence.
But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning.
Members of the church - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homo******ity for years, initially targeting the funerals of Aids victims but later extending their pickets to the funerals of soldiers, who they say are being punished by God.
Last year they caused outrage when they attended the funeral of Matthew Snyder with signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "You're going to hell".
On Wednesday, the jury ordered the church and three of its leaders to pay $2.9m in compensatory damages, and an additional $8m for invasion of privacy and for causing emotional distress.
Albert Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to agree an amount "that says 'Don't do this' in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again".
Defence attorney Jonathan Katz's argument that the $2.9m in compensatory damages already far exceeded the defendants' net worth and would be enough to "bankrupt them and financially destroy them" was ignored.
The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Fred Phelps. Most of its 70-odd members belong to his extended family.
Appeal
Albert Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict.
"I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families. It was not about the money. It was about getting them to stop," he said, according to ******* news agency.
Members of the church, however, reportedly greeted the verdict with tight-lipped smiles.
"It will take the 4th Circuit of Appeals a few minutes to reverse this silly thing," said Rev Phelps.
Daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper - co-defendant along with another daughter, Rebecca Phelps-Davis - called the verdict a blow against free speech and vowed to continue picketing military funerals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7072404.stm
This is wonderful news!!!!
Buckeye67
11-01-2007, 03:56 AM
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=122872
tyovan
11-01-2007, 06:22 AM
whoops - sorry :(
Calanen
11-01-2007, 07:14 AM
Well ok - I can go with that, but it seems awfully subjective. There's a very long way between zero dollars, a hundred dollars and millions of dollars. If the everyday insults we all suffer are worth so little (essentially nothing) - how can this be worth so much? You'd think that if this paid out millions, I could get a couple a grand per week just for coming in here. :)
The damages aspect is more about punishment of the defendant rather than being truly compensatory. And how do you punish a defendant a lot - hit them with a big punitive damages bill.
Hank - do you know if the Church was sued as an entity or all of the members, or both. If its just the Church as an entity, not a big deal. They can start Westboro 2 after it goes into Chapter 11. If some of the Church people were sued individually, that might hurt a lot more. I imagine that its likely the church and a few key individuals were sued - but that's just speculation.
Calanen
11-01-2007, 07:18 AM
The family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder -- who was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province in 2006 -- sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and its leaders for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/?iref=mpstoryview
Got the leaders of the Church too - if they are facing personal bankruptcy, that is going to hurt them big time. I think that is a just outcome, they will have to sell their houses now because of what they have done. Unless of course, an appeals court overturns the verdict.
The damages aspect is more about punishment of the defendant rather than being truly compensatory. And how do you punish a defendant a lot - hit them with a big punitive damages bill.
Hank - do you know if the Church was sued as an entity or all of the members, or both. If its just the Church as an entity, not a big deal. They can start Westboro 2 after it goes into Chapter 11. If some of the Church people were sued individually, that might hurt a lot more. I imagine that its likely the church and a few key individuals were sued - but that's just speculation.
I only know what was in that article but assuming its correct (big assumption I know) then the $2.9MM was compensatory. Meaning the plaintiffs proved those damages up and they had nothing to do with punitiives. Now the reality is that juries often punish egregious defendant with "pain and suffering" awards which are technically compensatory but in reality punitive. That may be what happened here. Its not uncommon to get 3 to 5 times your actual damages (meaning actual monetary loss) for pain and suffering.
The action brought was actually for "defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress." That makes a little more sense. The actual damages (meanig the monetary loss) spread out amongst those 3 causes of action make the $2.9MM a little more logical.
The punishment part was $8MM. That is a lot of punishment.
All you who love this verdict need to remember that feeling when you read about someone who actually gets physical injuries. There were no physical injuries in this case and many of you say $8.9MM is not enough.
hank
Freibier
11-01-2007, 09:42 AM
Disturbing a funeral has nothing to do with free speech, imho
If the fine really bancrupts the Westboro Babptist clowns, it's just about right
Look, let's be clear: I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. Their only value on this planet is the entertainment they provide. But that said, they were being merely offensive, not actually threatening. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre endangers lives; the only lives they're endangering is their own. I would much rather they have their asses kicked by angry parents than for the government to award damages for exercising free speech.
I guess I'm somewhat of a puritan when it comes to these things.
I think you (and others) are overreading the first amendment. There is no free speech in the US that blanketly applies to everything said - meaning you don't have the right to drop the "n" word wherever, whenever you want because that speech isn't even protected. Also, even speech that is protected is not allowed anywhere anytime - that is the reason people can't picket in front of Bush when he is speaking. The Supreme Court has said many times that not all speech is protected and protected speech is not allowed everwhere anytime.
This speech - hateful, antagonistic, designed to incite - might not even be protected. Now, in all candor, I doubt that will be the answer when this gets appealed. This seems to me to be just the type of speech (political in nature) that always gets 1st A protection.
It seems more likely to me that this speech will not be protected because of who it was actually directed agaisnt (an non-celebrity individual) and where it was said (a private funeral). I could be wrong about that but that is my initial thought based on what's in that article.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that the 1st A says you can say anything you want anytime you want. That has never been the case. And, if your speech is not protected by the 1st A, then you can be sued for it. That rationale is ultimately the basis for this lawsuit.
hank
Mastermind
11-01-2007, 10:24 AM
No they don't have to sell their houses and if they are smart, they anticipated a potential law suit and incorporated the church and their personal holdings. Bankruptcy does not let creditors take your home or even your means of transportation or any real property that supports your living (like farm land if you are a farmer)...so long as you continue to make your payments on such real property or own it outright. However, your creditors can garnishee certain incomes so long as you are left with enough income to support your self and family. Basically, there is very small likely hood any money or property will actually be exchanged. The creditor can also place liens against any real property basically barring the debtor from selling the property...upon such sale, the creditor get's paid from the proceeds. But, until the debtor sells, the property stays in his name. But, the creditor (plaintif) has the right to take anything and everything (income) above a pre-set (by the court) limit...although he may have to get a court order every time he wants to take something that appears to be "extra" until the judication is settled.
Firetxmi
11-01-2007, 12:16 PM
I watched an interview with Lance Cpl. Snyders father on MSNBC this morning. He made it very clear that he could care less about the money.
In fact he said they had several opportunities to not even go to court. He offered to drop the court case multiple times if they would simply stop protesting at service members funerals.
Shellshock1918
11-01-2007, 12:19 PM
Glad these a-holes are bankrupt. I disagree with the war, but blaming deaths of soldiers because God hates homo******s is just dumb.
2Sheds_Jackson
11-01-2007, 01:36 PM
A couple of reasons. First this is intentional behavior and juries almost always give substantial damages for intentional behavior. Second, remember that the 2.9 was "compensatory" - meaning the plaintiff's put on some evidence of actual loss. I'm not sure exactly how they did that, but I'd be willing to bet that they claimed they'd need medical care (i.e. psych treatment) to get over this and got some expert to testify that it would cost $X over X years.
hank
Well yeah, I get that. But like I said, that's an awful lot of money. $2.9 million for psych care? What, for an entire baseball team for 20 years? Like I said, I don't find fault with the verdict, just the amount of damages.
If this is worth $2.9 million in damage (not to mention the punitive award - which will no doubt show that they were multi-million dollar jerks), how much is school bullying worth? Or being insulted by a stand-up comic? Or somebody flipping me off in traffic? Surely not $0, when this funeral thing was worth millions. If there was any logic to an award like this, I could make a good living just being compensated for everyday annoyances.
I'm trying to think of how somebody could do $2.9 million dollars worth of psychological damage to me....I don't think it's possible.
The plaintiffs have already said it's not about the money - and I agree - it appears to be about the government using it's power to financially destroy an annoying religion.
Well yeah, I get that. But like I said, that's an awful lot of money. $2.9 million for psych care? What, for an entire baseball team for 20 years? Like I said, I don't find fault with the verdict, just the amount of damages.
If this is worth $2.9 million in damage (not to mention the punitive award - which will no doubt show that they were multi-million dollar jerks), how much is school bullying worth? Or being insulted by a stand-up comic? Or somebody flipping me off in traffic? Surely not $0, when this funeral thing was worth millions. If there was any logic to an award like this, I could make a good living just being compensated for everyday annoyances.
I'm trying to think of how somebody could do $2.9 million dollars worth of psychological damage to me....I don't think it's possible.
The plaintiffs have already said it's not about the money - and I agree - it appears to be about the government using it's power to financially destroy an annoying religion.
You are drawing conclusions about this award that aren't supported by anything in the article. I can tell that a jury is never allowed to award compensatory damages unless they are faced with admissible evidence to support that award. The recent BMW case form the UP Supreme Court makes that clear. Punitive damages awards that are no supported by admissisble evidence are unconstitutional. Just because this journalist didn't write about it doesn'e mean the jury didn't hear/see evidence about it. The fact remains that a jury awarded $2.9MM as compensation and if that award is not supported by the evidence it will get overturned on appeal.
Let's make sure we are clear, I don't like this award. This is the first of these verdicts that I've heard you guys talk about that I think can't properly be characterized as "frivolous" so we are on the same page. My problem with your contentions is that you've (as usual) asserted that there is no basis for this award. Well, yeah there was or a judge couldn't allow it. You don't agree with but that is not the proper basis for your claims. The fact remains that 12 people thought differently, and that those 12 peopl heard/saw the evidence. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean it lacks logic.
As for everyday annoyances being actionable that is pure folly. There are thousands of cases holding them unactionable. The causes of action here are for intentional behavior. So you needn't worry that this somehow will allow people to sue each other for annoynances.
hank
Chulo
11-01-2007, 02:16 PM
The plaintiffs have already said it's not about the money - and I agree - it appears to be about the government using it's power to financially destroy an annoying religion.
side note : i think they are considered a cult rather than a religion
2Sheds_Jackson
11-01-2007, 06:07 PM
You are drawing conclusions about this award that aren't supported by anything in the article. I can tell that a jury is never allowed to award compensatory damages unless they are faced with admissible evidence to support that award. The recent BMW case form the UP Supreme Court makes that clear. Punitive damages awards that are no supported by admissisble evidence are unconstitutional. Just because this journalist didn't write about it doesn'e mean the jury didn't hear/see evidence about it. The fact remains that a jury awarded $2.9MM as compensation and if that award is not supported by the evidence it will get overturned on appeal.
Supported by evidence? What possible evidence can the provide regarding future expenses stemming from psychological injury? They may have no injury at all, yet provide reams of paperwork from doctors swearing up and down that it will cost tens of millions of dollars to fix their pretend ailment, and as a result will miss decades of work. Remember that's how Schiavo got his money - by swearing up and down that he'd take care of his wife in the future...and we see how that settlement went. It's like asking a body shop how much something will cost. The next question is "how much do you have". It's a gentleman's game - hands are shaken and everybody makes money.
Let's make sure we are clear, I don't like this award. This is the first of these verdicts that I've heard you guys talk about that I think can't properly be characterized as "frivolous" so we are on the same page. My problem with your contentions is that you've (as usual) asserted that there is no basis for this award. Well, yeah there was or a judge couldn't allow it. You don't agree with but that is not the proper basis for your claims. The fact remains that 12 people thought differently, and that those 12 peopl heard/saw the evidence. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean it lacks logic.
You're under the assumption that the judge and jury are an incorruptible, unbiased robots and what they say is automatically right. You deal with the law, and nobody has questioned the legality of the ruling. We are dealing here with a moral issue - about how correct it is to impose massive penalties like this over what amounts to nothing more than totally subjective, unprovable emotional upset. If the Westboro a-holes dressed and acted like the Amish, this would never have seen the light of day. Instead they're a bunch of loud, annoying freaks led by a hatchet-faced wacko, and they engender hatred any time they appear. For them, going in front of a jury is death...I'd hate to be their defense attorney even under the best circumstances.
As for everyday annoyances being actionable that is pure folly. There are thousands of cases holding them unactionable. The causes of action here are for intentional behavior. So you needn't worry that this somehow will allow people to sue each other for annoynances.
I'm sorry but you have really, really upset me by saying this. I'm literally on the verge of tears. I don't think I can go to work tomorrow. In fact, I can probably never go to work again, and support my family's lavish lifestyle, until I get some very, very expensive therapy. I burst into tears every time somebody criticizes me, and Mr. Winky won't stand at attention any more. And hey, you obviously did it intentionally. Just look at the foul and abusive language you've used. Why it gives me the vapors just to read it again.
I happen to have here an sworn affidavit from Dr. Feelgood who is ready to testify that my rehab and counseling will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million, and take about 15 years. Over that timespan, while I'm not able to work in my chosen profession as art school **** model and fry cook, I'll lose wages of about $1.8 million. Yeah it pays well but you should totally see my ass before passing judgment. All I need to do is find a judge and jury who are similarly pissed off at you, and my idiotic story will fly through the court like **** through a goose, no?
2Sheds_Jackson
11-01-2007, 06:39 PM
Ok just to further shore up the point that I'm really not making very well, MSNBC has a story up today with some quotes from the father who sued the group:
Albert Snyder’s heart sank when he picked up his local newspaper on the morning after he buried his son, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, and found the front page dominated by a story about protestors thanking God for killing another soldier.
Snyder knew then he had to do something.
“It was splattered all over the newspapers the next day,” Snyder told TODAY co-host Matt Lauer in an exclusive interview Thursday. “The thing that was so disappointing was the fact that there was like, a two-by-two picture of my son and almost a full page on the protestors. That was kind of hard.”
Somehow "kind of hard" = $11 million dollars? There are lots of things that are kind of hard.
Snyder told Lauer that some people who attended the funeral saw the protestors, but he didn’t.
I don't like defending these lowlifes - but it just seems to me that we have a large chunk of our legal system working on feel-good-ism which is completely outside the bounds of anything reasonable IMHO. I'm sure it's all tidy and legal and attended to by people wearing suits, but that doesn't make it right. :|
Jesus, this has the potential to rise to the level of our arguments about gay marriage and equal rights.
I'm not defending this verdict. I've said (now for the fourth time) that this verdict seems excessive, hell even frivolous. You act as if I defend this verdict when that is expressly not the case.
The only point I am making is that verdicts do not come from thin air. They are always supported by evidence. And when they are not they are thrown out. What kind of evidence? Well, usually in cases like this it does come from a psychiatrist who says they'll need treatment and then an economist who says it will cost $X over X years. That is how its done. What do you propose to the contrary? How else could you do it?
Moral issue regarding a jury verdict? I don't see it. How can it be immoral?
I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph. These guys are unsympathetic pricks and they got hammered by a jury? Well, yeah, that is it exaclty. The very basis of tort law in all the Western legal systems is that you get money damages when that is all that is available. I'm beginning to think you question the validity of that concept in general.
Unintentionally hurting someone's feelings is not and never has been actionable. You obviously thought that our little example was funny, but do you honestly not see the difference between an unintentional slight and the picketing of a funeral?
I get your point - bad words are a long way from $11MM. OK. But don't insinuate that this is a wink, wink deal with the judge and the jury. You know what you read in an article. The jury and judge saw the trial. Very different.
Large part of our legal system? How do you figure? This was a trial. Nothing more. The government isn't involved in this except for the trial itself. This action was brought by an individual.
hank
California Joe
11-01-2007, 07:00 PM
Somehow "kind of hard" = $11 million dollars? There are lots of things that are kind of hard.
There's a viagra joke in there.
Chulo
11-01-2007, 07:07 PM
There's a viagra joke in there.
in there? its sticking out!
California Joe
11-01-2007, 07:17 PM
Only "kind of" sticking out.
2Sheds_Jackson
11-01-2007, 07:21 PM
There's a viagra joke in there.
Oh man. The suspense is killin' me. Somebody please go ahead.
Jesus, this has the potential to rise to the level of our arguments about gay marriage and equal rights.
Heh heh yeah, good times.
I'm not defending this verdict. I've said (now for the fourth time) that this verdict seems excessive, hell even frivolous. You act as if I defend this verdict when that is expressly not the case.
Don't you use the word "expressly" on me, you bastard. p-) I guess I didn't quite catch what you were saying...and so was I beating a dead horse, sorry. But then I kind of enjoy that.
The only point I am making is that verdicts do not come from thin air. They are always supported by evidence. And when they are not they are thrown out. What kind of evidence? Well, usually in cases like this it does come from a psychiatrist who says they'll need treatment and then an economist who says it will cost $X over X years. That is how its done. What do you propose to the contrary? How else could you do it?
Well I agree - but don't you think that those figures are a guesstimate at best, and a complete fabrication at worst? I mean, it's not like if a window gets broken and you see the broken window, and get 3 quotes from hardware stores to replace it. Here we have a window that may not even be broken to begin with, and a hardware store that picks prices out of thin air.
Moral issue regarding a jury verdict? I don't see it. How can it be immoral?
I would say it could be immoral if the money was awarded as the result of a collective bias against the a-hole Westboro people, instead of as a result of real damages incurred by the defendant. By virtue of the ethereal evidence of real damages, I see a lot of wiggle room for mischief, that's all.
Well I agree - but don't you think that those figures are a guesstimate at best, and a complete fabrication at worst? I mean, it's not like if a window gets broken and you see the broken window, and get 3 quotes from hardware stores to replace it. Here we have a window that may not even be broken to begin with, and a hardware store that picks prices out of thin air.
I would say it could be immoral if the money was awarded as the result of a collective bias against the a-hole Westboro people, instead of as a result of real damages incurred by the defendant. By virtue of the ethereal evidence of real damages, I see a lot of wiggle room for mischief, that's all.
Of course any future damages contain some element of speculation - as does any endeavor that attempts to predict the future. And many future damages awards are thrown out for this reason. Many a good defense lawyer makes a good living challenging the sufficiency of expert testimony regarding future damages. Very rigorous process to get that evidence in front of a jury. Google "daubert" if you want an idea of what a big effing deal it is.
I guess we can just disagree about the morality. Punishment and deterrence are fundamental principals of tort law. Punishing and deterring this plaintiff from this behavior is an acceptable goal for a jury and it sounds like that was a motivator for this jury.
I am still a bastard.
hank
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.