Harry P. Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 One last time. in the desperate hope that someone understands my point (I think maybe Bill E. does)... Bob is accused of killing Tom. Bob stands trial for Tom's death. The jury finds Bob NOT GUILTY. Bob is free to go. Tom's family then decides to sue Bob in civil court for damages in relation to Tom's death. How is it fair that Bob must stand trial for the same offense (Tom's death) that a criminal jury has just found him to be NOT GUILTY of? How can a person be found "responsible" or "liable" or "culpable" for an offense (in a civil court) that he has been found NOT GUILTY of committing in a criminal trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It's not fair. America is greedy, always has been and will be. It's stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toner283 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 One last time. in the desperate hope that someone understands my point (I think maybe Bill E. does)... Bob is accused of killing Tom. Bob stands trial for Tom's death. The jury finds Bob NOT GUILTY. Bob is free to go. Tom's family then decides to sue Bob in civil court for damages in relation to Tom's death. How is it fair that Bob must stand trial for the same offense (Tom's death) that a criminal jury has just found him to be NOT GUILTY of? How can a person be found "responsible" or "liable" or "culpable" for an offense (in a civil court) that he has been found NOT GUILTY of committing in a criminal trial? I see where you are coming from Harry but in legal speak, not guilty is not the same as innocent. They are two different realities. You can be found not guilty of a crime but still not be innocent of any wrong doing. *** Before anyone jumps on me, I am responding to Harrys ficticious example, not the Tony Stewart case. *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 You can be found not guilty of a crime but still not be innocent of any wrong doing. Exactly. That's my point. "Not Guilty" should mean "Not Guilty." You are either found guilty of a crime... or not guilty. Period. Not "Not Guilty" in this court but maybe "Guilty" in the other court. Which brings me back to my original thought... if a person is found "Guilty" of a crime, then yes, they can also be held liable for damages in a civil court. But if a person is fount "Not Guilty" of the offense in a criminal trial, they should not then be forced to stand trial again for the same offense in civil court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 What I don't get is that if he was found to not be at fault enough to be procecuted for this kid's death due having him walk out in front of Stewart's car, how can it that he should be sued for wrongful death when his only crime is being on the track when this kid was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 What I don't get is that if he was found to not be at fault enough to be procecuted for this kid's death due having him walk out in front of Stewart's car, how can it that he should be sued for wrongful death when his only crime is being on the track when this kid was. Well, that's where it gets tricky. It's not that he was found to be not at fault, but that the grand jury decided not to indict him. They felt that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Stewart's part. So Stewart has not been found either guilty or not guilty of anything... the grand jury has decided that there are no grounds to put him on trial for any criminal offense in the first place. But the fact that he isn't going to be charged criminally doesn't mean the kid's family can't go after him for monetary damages in civil court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnwildpunk Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 This is all reasons why our legal system is flawed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted October 4, 2014 Author Share Posted October 4, 2014 Well, that's where it gets tricky. It's not that he was found to be not at fault, but that the grand jury decided not to indict him. They felt that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Stewart's part. So Stewart has not been found either guilty or not guilty of anything... the grand jury has decided that there are no grounds to put him on trial for any criminal offense in the first place. But the fact that he isn't going to be charged criminally doesn't mean the kid's family can't go after him for monetary damages in civil court. Exactly. Is this the same Harry that wrote all those other posts? And, Harry, wherever you are: One last time. In the desperate hope that Harry will somehow understand this point: The civil and the criminal aspects are two different things entirely. Apples and oranges. Some of the same facts may be involved in either or both, but they are NOT the same. Double Jeopardy means you cannot be charged criminally for the same crime more than once. But civil torts involve different issues than criminal charges, thus they are NOT the SAME. Generally speaking, the outcome of a criminal proceeding cannot be introduced into a civil trial as proof of tortuous wrongdoing. Therefore, the same or similar elements have to be proven independently of the criminal verdict. And it works both ways. The verdict in a criminal matter (if there is one) cannot be used as proof that an actor is not responsible for tortuous wrongdoing. So, there must be separate proceedings. Regardless of how you slice it, a person may be held civilly responsible for his/her actions whether or not he/she is charged with a crime arising from the same incident and regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial. You don't have to take my word for it. Look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted October 4, 2014 Author Share Posted October 4, 2014 This is all reasons why our legal system is flawed Actually, not. Our system of justice is far more fair than a society where your family, livelihood, property, worldly goods and assets can be taken from you without due process. To have a criminal conviction automatically take everything away from you is far more flawed. Or, for that matter, to have a system where a jury can acquit a murderer and his victim's family be unable to see redress is far more flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 For the civil part the question will be did Tony do everything possible to avoid hitting Ward which is different from deliberately trying to hit ward. Now Tony can't be judged 100 percent at fault because Ward contibuted to his own death by going on to the track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Dan... one last, last, LAST time... just for you. I understand that criminal court and civil court are two different things. I understand the burden of proof is different in a criminal trial vs. a civil trial. But what I do NOT understand is why a person who has been found NOT GUILTY in a criminal trial can then be sued for the same offense in a civil trial. OJ was found not guilty. Make of that verdict what you will, but the bottom line is that he was found not guilty of the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Yet he was still sued for damages by the Goldman family for the death of Ron Goldman... a charge he had been found not guilty of in the criminal trial. How can you be held responsible and culpable for something you have been found "not guilty" of? Please, PLEASE, Dan.... tell me you understand my point! If you are found NOT GUILTY of a crime, that should end it. The fact that a person can be found not guilty of a criminal charge, yet still be found "responsible" for that charge in a civil court is not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) Civil court not trying a person for a crime that is what the criminal court does. Civil court determines if your actions in whole or part was the cause for a loss for another party. You are required to pay restitution for the part that you contributed to a loss. Civil the term is wrongful death suit. You can cause someones death without committing a crime. There is no double jeopardy here you are not being tried for the same crime twice. Edited October 5, 2014 by bobthehobbyguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Perfect example the current mess with GM. GM could be found not guilty in criminal court but have a wrongful death suit in civil. By your arguement GM couldn't be sued in civil court because of the criminal trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I don't remember there being any GM criminal trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 By your arguement GM couldn't be sued in civil court because of the criminal trial. You obviously don't understand what my point is because you continually respond in ways that don't address what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. My argument is simply this: It is my opinion that if you are found NOT GUILTY of an offense in a criminal trial, you should NOT then face the possibility of being put on trial for that same offense in a civil trial. In my opinion: If you are found not guilty of murdering a guy, that guy's family should not have the right to sue you in civil court for the death of that man... because you have already been found NOT GUILTY of that offense. That's it. It's a very simple concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGlueblob Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Sigh... But in the Real World, that isn't how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. My argument is simply this: It is my opinion that if you are found NOT GUILTY of an offense in a criminal trial, you should NOT then face the possibility of being put on trial for that same offense in a civil trial. In my opinion: If you are found not guilty of murdering a guy, that guy's family should not have the right to sue you in civil court for the death of that man... because you have already been found NOT GUILTY of that offense. That's it. It's a very simple concept. Harry sorry but your point isnt valid. I've tried to come up with cases to illustrate my point and you keep saying that my arguements are not relevant. All I can say is you want to fix something that isn't broken. I can see that we aren't getting anywhere with this and I'm not going to waste any more energy on this. Believe what you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toast Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) I don't know why I'm weighing in on this but Harry your Bob and Tom analogy is a little too black and white. Say Bob and Tom meet at a stop light on their motorcycles. They decide to race. Half way down the block witnesses say they see Bob side swipe Tom and they crash. Tom dies. Bob is tried for the murder of Tom. evidence from the crash site shows that road debris caused Bob to loose control and veer into Tom causing the accident. He is found not guilty of murder. Now. Tom's family can still sue Bob for damages. Because he was in the race with Tom he is partially responsible for the events leading to Tom's death. Had he not agreed to race, it's very likely Tom would still be alive. Edited October 5, 2014 by Toast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Going by that, couldn't the family sue any other racer for racing with him, the man who sold him the marijuana thus impairing his judgement, or the manufacturer or his car for allowing him to actually participate in the race? I've heard of people suing gun companies for someone getting shot before, so it isn't too far-fetched. If people want money bad enough, they'll go down every stupid avenue they can with their pursuits before it's exhausted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychographic Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I don't know why I'm weighing in on this but Harry your Bob and Tom analogy is a little too black and white. Say Bob and Tom meet at a stop light on their motorcycles. They decide to race. Half way down the block witnesses say they see Bob side swipe Tom and they crash. Tom dies. Bob is tried for the murder of Tom. evidence from the crash site shows that road debris caused Bob to loose control and veer into Tom causing the accident. He is found not guilty of murder. Now. Tom's family can still sue Bob for damages. Because he was in the race with Tom he is partially responsible for the events leading to Tom's death. Had he not agreed to race, it's very likely Tom would still be alive. Did Bob hold a gun to Tom's head and make him race? Why shouldn't Tom be responsible for his own actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) Going by that, couldn't the family sue any other racer for racing with him, the man who sold him the marijuana thus impairing his judgement, or the manufacturer or his car for allowing him to actually participate in the race? I've heard of people suing gun companies for someone getting shot before, so it isn't too far-fetched. If people want money bad enough, they'll go down every stupid avenue they can with their pursuits before it's exhausted. From what Dad saw with the railroad in train collisions is that the family went for deep pockets, the rail road, their insurer, the guys in the train, possibly the automaker, ect. When it comes to Stewart and NASCAR, deeeeeeeep pockets there for some ambulance chaser to try and dip into. Edited October 5, 2014 by Joe Handley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Did Bob hold a gun to Tom's head and make him race? Why shouldn't Tom be responsible for his own actions? This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_G Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 OJ was found not guilty. Make of that verdict what you will, but the bottom line is that he was found not guilty of the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Yet he was still sued for damages by the Goldman family for the death of Ron Goldman... a charge he had been found not guilty of in the criminal trial. OJ was found not guilty of MURDER, the civil suit was for wrongful death . Yes I know, the end result is the same in that someone is killed, but they're not the same offenses in the eyes of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I agree with Harry. That was my point to begin with. All the other examples. are just like going after the Rail Road's BIG pockets. Sadly it's become the American way. We have to blame some one for our own poor judgment, and now we have laws that allow us to do just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.