• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

Status
Not open for further replies.
OscarB63 said:
ah, so just llike everything else you've posted here...it is strictly your opinion and not based on any actual facts. got it :lamo
Click to expand...

yep that about sums it up to anybody that knows how to scroll back through the pages of this thread.
 
AdamT said:
You realize that criminal juries go through the same process, right?

And FYI, you might want to do a little research before you assume that the McDonalds jury was off its rocker.
Click to expand...

yes, I think it's an overall problem with how we select juries today. It's too engineered.

And FYI, I did research the McDonald's trial; the jury was off its rocker to award that much. Your smarmy isn't that good, you should either get better at it or stop trying to use it.
 
Centrist77 said:
translation: you GUESS and ASSUMED WRONG AGAIN
Click to expand...

Just trying to be helpful by pointing out a FACT that y'all may or may not have been aware of. I'm sure you all knew it already. :2rofll:
 
Aderleth said:
Juries, whether civil or criminal, are finders of fact. What I was pointing out is that the civil jury reached factual conclusions consistent with both civil liability in a wrongful death suit, and a murder conviction (b/c absence of self-defense). So you are absolutely wrong in saying that the civil jury didn't (or perhaps couldn't) have reached the factual conclusions I listed.
Click to expand...

Juries have become the lowest common denominator thanks to the engineering of lawyers. They were supposed to be intelligent and rational. I am not wrong in what I said, however. Civil courts CANNOT RULE ON CRIMINALITY OF ACT. They only judge liability.
 
Gipper said:
Well yeah, but I'm wondering exactly can be said here. Is any man powerful enough to summon his "inner Cochran" enough to make sand castles in the sky like this? Other than to point at the toddler girl and constantly shout, "they killed her daddy!" over and over, what the hell can they say? It almost seems like the defense could've walked into the room, clothes soaked through with blood, carrying sawed-off shotguns and left free and clear.
Click to expand...

I'll break this down for you. You could also refer back a few pages where I quoted the statute in Colorado that relates to self defense. Let's start from the beginning:

- Murder is the intentional killing of another human being, absent some kind of defense. Self defense is the only defense at issue in this case. It follows that if these guys do not have a valid argument for self defense, they can and should be indicted for (and probably found guilty of) murder.

-In Colorado, you can generally use reasonable force to protect yourself, others, or property. However, you can only use deadly force to protect either yourself or another (NOT property) from serious, imminent bodily harm or death, and you can only use deadly force if lesser force would not save you from death/serious bodily harm.

The three defendants were under no threat of serious bodily harm or death. They fired repeatedly at two men who were not threatening them (although the men were threatening the business owners' property). As you can plainly see, the actions of these guys do not meet the standards for self defense using deadly force in the state of Colorado.
 
Ikari said:
yes, I think it's an overall problem with how we select juries today. It's too engineered.

And FYI, I did research the McDonald's trial; the jury was off its rocker to award that much. Your smarmy isn't that good, you should either get better at it or stop trying to use it.
Click to expand...

on a side note that is off topic since you said you researched the McDs trail. Wasnt there a loop hole in that case that proved negligence?

I HEARD that theres a standard for the temp of coffee, and then McDs had there own ISO procedures for the temp of coffee and it was found that the temp greatly exceed that and even exceeded its days later when checked. Is that true or some internet BS.
 
Ikari said:
yes, I think it's an overall problem with how we select juries today. It's too engineered.

And FYI, I did research the McDonald's trial; the jury was off its rocker to award that much. Your smarmy isn't that good, you should either get better at it or stop trying to use it.
Click to expand...

Well that's surprising, because the case had nothing to do with cup lid, as you suggested above. Medical Malpractice in the Health Care Debate: Sucking Us Back Into the "Tort Reform" Bog? | Center for Media and Democracy
 
Ikari said:
Juries have become the lowest common denominator thanks to the engineering of lawyers. They were supposed to be intelligent and rational. I am not wrong in what I said, however. Civil courts CANNOT RULE ON CRIMINALITY OF ACT. They only judge liability.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference in this context. Also not precisely accurate. Once again, juries are finders of fact. They make determinations of what actually happened, factually. Then, depending on whether the jury is civil or criminal, they apply those factual determinations to the further determination of guilt or innocence (if criminal) or liability/fault vs lack thereof (if civil). Which is why, again, the factual conclusions that the jury reached were well within their purview.
 
AdamT said:
Just trying to be helpful by pointing out a FACT that y'all may or may not have been aware of. I'm sure you all knew it already. :2rofll:
Click to expand...

HELPFUL?
POINTING OUT FACTS??

there is nothing in your recent post history to indicate such behavior so no matter how you FEEL about what you are doing, Im going to judge you like a reasonable subjective person would and call BS. Now wipe that egg off your face.


LMAO:laughat:
 
Ikari said:
Juries have become the lowest common denominator thanks to the engineering of lawyers. They were supposed to be intelligent and rational. I am not wrong in what I said, however. Civil courts CANNOT RULE ON CRIMINALITY OF ACT. They only judge liability.
Click to expand...

Right, they weren't deciding criminality, but in order to reach a verdict on liability, they did have to decide that the defendants were not acting in self defense -- which would have been a defense to liability in the civil case.
 
Centrist77 said:
HELPFUL?
POINTING OUT FACTS??

there is nothing in your recent post history to indicate such behavior so no matter how you FEEL about what you are doing, Im going to judge you like a reasonable subjective person would and call BS. Now wipe that egg off your face.


LMAO:laughat:
Click to expand...

Did I hear your mom calling you to dinner?
 
Centrist77 said:
on a side note that is off topic since you said you researched the McDs trail. Wasnt there a loop hole in that case that proved negligence?

I HEARD that theres a standard for the temp of coffee, and then McDs had there own ISO procedures for the temp of coffee and it was found that the temp greatly exceed that and even exceeded its days later when checked. Is that true or some internet BS.
Click to expand...

They had set the temp of coffee to be rather high. It's not unprecedented and in fact in many forms of making coffee, the temp they used was the temp suggested for optimal brewing (though at the time McDonald's was still using that crappy coffee and so "optimal" is very subjective).

The thing that really got the jury going was that they felt that McDonald's was being very dismissive of the temperature problem. There had been reports of burns as well, I forget the number off hand; but this wasn't the only case. McDonald's was questioned about this and they claimed that as a percentage of cups of coffee sold per year, the number of burn victims was essentially zero. This was, in fact, a statistically correct statement; it was several sub-percentages of total coffee sold. But the jury reacted emotionally to the statement rather than logically and heard McDonald's essentially say that all those people were zero. It went into the absurd and overly punitive monetary reward that the jury awarded the plaintiff.
 
AdamT said:
Did I hear your mom calling you to dinner?
Click to expand...

another failed insult, so lame and predictable. Please I beg you just give us facts and substances instead of your opinion OR simply admit its JUST your opinion and you wont expose yourself so much. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
They had set the temp of coffee to be rather high. It's not unprecedented and in fact in many forms of making coffee, the temp they used was the temp suggested for optimal brewing (though at the time McDonald's was still using that crappy coffee and so "optimal" is very subjective).

The thing that really got the jury going was that they felt that McDonald's was being very dismissive of the temperature problem. There had been reports of burns as well, I forget the number off hand; but this wasn't the only case. McDonald's was questioned about this and they claimed that as a percentage of cups of coffee sold per year, the number of burn victims was essentially zero. This was, in fact, a statistically correct statement; it was several sub-percentages of total coffee sold. But the jury reacted emotionally to the statement rather than logically and heard McDonald's essentially say that all those people were zero. It went into the absurd and overly punitive monetary reward that the jury awarded the plaintiff.
Click to expand...

The small number of previous complaints, some of which involved third degree burns such as occurred in the instant case, was 700.
 
Aderleth said:
- Murder is the intentional killing of another human being, absent some kind of defense. Self defense is the only defense at issue in this case. It follows that if these guys do not have a valid argument for self defense, they can and should be indicted for (and probably found guilty of) murder.
Click to expand...

Then yes, by this definition (which I don't agree with), it'd be murder. Technically they fit the motive-opportunity-intent criteria based on what was said earlier. Having said that, while a murder typically has those 3 elements, having those 3 elements does not make it murder necessarily. The reason they had 2 of the 3 is because they were unwillingly dragged into a potential life-or-death situation with myriad elements and variables. This is also why I don't fully buy self-defense. In situations like this, you can have a handbook, plans, designations, whatever...when it's crunch time, all rules are off. Patton said, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week". I'm just speaking for me. The only time I do not feel threatened is when I see them completely off my property, running like little girls. Hiding behind a building, also on my property, is not threat elimination in my book. If this makes me "liable", so be it. Maybe it's what we need to rethink some policies going now.
 
Centrist77 said:
another failed insult, so lame and predictable. Please I beg you just give us facts and substances instead of your opinion OR simply admit its JUST your opinion and you wont expose yourself so much. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think you've already had enough substances. Best to detox for a while.
 
Ikari said:
They had set the temp of coffee to be rather high. It's not unprecedented and in fact in many forms of making coffee, the temp they used was the temp suggested for optimal brewing (though at the time McDonald's was still using that crappy coffee and so "optimal" is very subjective).

The thing that really got the jury going was that they felt that McDonald's was being very dismissive of the temperature problem. There had been reports of burns as well, I forget the number off hand; but this wasn't the only case. McDonald's was questioned about this and they claimed that as a percentage of cups of coffee sold per year, the number of burn victims was essentially zero. This was, in fact, a statistically correct statement; it was several sub-percentages of total coffee sold. But the jury reacted emotionally to the statement rather than logically and heard McDonald's essentially say that all those people were zero. It went into the absurd and overly punitive monetary reward that the jury awarded the plaintiff.
Click to expand...


hmm interesting
thanks for clearing that up

so it basically turned into McDs looking like a major corp that was ****ting on the little guy and instead of caring that they may have hurt people, they painted themselves to look like they didnt give a **** buy quoting stats and it burned them in the end.

thanks again!
When I get time im gonna have to look at it myself. Surprised it was never a movie lol.
 
Centrist77 said:
hmm interesting
thanks for clearing that up

so it basically turned into McDs looking like a major corp that was ****ting on the little guy and instead of caring that they may have hurt people, they painted themselves to look like they didnt give a **** buy quoting stats and it burned them in the end.

thanks again!
When I get time im gonna have to look at it myself. Surprised it was never a movie lol.
Click to expand...

Spoiler alert!

burn.jpg
 
AdamT said:
I think you've already had enough substances. Best to detox for a while.
Click to expand...

what is this failed attempt number #313?

if i had substances in me it would be ME defending the dead armed junkie and making accuses for him, but, oddly its you. :shrug:
 
AdamT said:
The small number of previous complaints, some of which involved third degree burns such as occurred in the instant case, was 700.
Click to expand...
\

Yes 700 cases and I believe it was something like 10 billion cups of coffee sold in that same time frame. What's 700/10 billion? Oh yeah...statistically zero.
 
Ikari said:
\

Yes 700 cases and I believe it was something like 10 billion cups of coffee sold in that same time frame. What's 700/10 billion? Oh yeah...statistically zero.
Click to expand...

And what makes it reasonable to figure the percentage? Seven hundred complaints of serious injury weren't enough to put them on notice that it might be a problem? What do you think would have been appropriate? They shouldn't do something until there were a million injuries?

The irony is that the woman in question wasn't even trying to go after them. She just wanted them to cover her medical expenses. They essentially gave her the one finger salute.
 
Gipper said:
Then yes, by this definition (which I don't agree with), it'd be murder. Technically they fit the motive-opportunity-intent criteria based on what was said earlier. Having said that, while a murder typically has those 3 elements, having those 3 elements does not make it murder necessarily. The reason they had 2 of the 3 is because they were unwillingly dragged into a potential life-or-death situation with myriad elements and variables. This is also why I don't fully buy self-defense. In situations like this, you can have a handbook, plans, designations, whatever...when it's crunch time, all rules are off. Patton said, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week". I'm just speaking for me. The only time I do not feel threatened is when I see them completely off my property, running like little girls. Hiding behind a building, also on my property, is not threat elimination in my book. If this makes me "liable", so be it. Maybe it's what we need to rethink some policies going now.
Click to expand...

I understand your feelings on the subject, but if we went too far in that direction (and there are a couple of states that have done so, in my opinion), we'd see an awful lot of unnecessary deaths. Also, these guys really weren't unwillingly dragged into this situation. As I pointed out to Ikari a page or two back (and to several others throughout this thread) these guys apparently told the cops - well in advance of this incident - that they intended to shoot the next person or people to invade their property. In other words they created a violent situation where none needed to exist. There are many ways they could have protected their property that didn't involve firing on two people. They could have invested in guard dogs, or barbed wire fences, or an alarm system. They did none of those things. It seems very likely to me that they were a lot more interested in vengeance than in protecting either themselves or their property.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
And what makes it reasonable to figure the percentage? Seven hundred complaints of serious injury weren't enough to put them on notice that it might be a problem?
Click to expand...

If there were a problem, the number of complaints wouldn't be buried in statistical noise.

AdamT said:
The irony is that the woman in question wasn't even trying to go after them. She just wanted them to cover her medical expenses. They essentially gave her the one finger salute.
Click to expand...

Yeah, McDonald's really screwed the granny on that one. Should have settled.
 
Ikari said:
If there were a problem, the number of complaints wouldn't be buried in statistical noise.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it was a problem, serving a beverage hot enough to inflict third degree burns in a flimsy container passed into a vehicle.

I am curious what percentage of customers you think needs to be seriously injured before it becomes something they should concern themselves with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom