The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Not the same thing at all. The trespassers were trespassers rather than thieves because they hadn't performed an act necessary to the commission of any theft crime. By contrast, the murders are murders because they did commit all of the acts necessary to the crime of murder, and they didn't have a valid defense for doing so. If you'd like to talk about the relevance of the grand jury, feel free to do so, but first, please address my comments as to why doing so is ridiculous.
they were guilty of B&E, damage to property, etc. they had already committed several crimes. to call them "trespassers" is completely dishonest and shows what a weak arguement you have.
rant all you want, matlock, you wanting these property owners to be murderers doesn't make it so.
Last edited by OscarB63; 09-19-11 at 03:28 PM.
The flip side, as it was explained to me, is that a conviction would guarantee a civil win if they were that related to each other. And sometimes people will agree that an event that doesn't rise to the criminal DOES rise to the civil. Maybe somebody doesn't deserve prison but should PAY something, in other words.
Don't know enough about the case to comment on this one.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
oooooh, Mr. Lawyer gonna try to trump me wiff his sheepskin now. I'mma shakin in my boots. another sign of desperation. appeal to authority, especially your own.You're right, layperson.
glad you are finally agreeing with the grand jury who let them walk.Desire has nothing to do with making these people murderers. Their acts, and the law make them murderers.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon
Moreover, in the eyes of the law it is irrelevant that the murder victim was armed. What matters is a) the shooters did not and could not have known that at the time, and b) even if they had known, the guy wasn't actually attacking them with the weapons at the time he was shot. If shooting someone who happens to be armed (even though they're not attacking you) was valid in the eyes of the law, I imagine quite a lot of you would re-think your position on carrying concealed weapons.
You may wish the law operated differently. I'm sure many people would agree with you (although not me). Nevertheless, under the law as it stands, and based on the information we actually have, these guys committed murder.