Danno

What's a striped dod dish?

Harry, I got the point of what you were saying . . . each time you said it. Your point wasn't lost . . . but you were/are mixing apples and oranges and expecting them to be the same thing. They are not. The replies you say are issues you didn't bring up are/were attempts to explain or illustrate the differences. Apples and oranges; civil law and criminal law; lacquer and enamel. Similar but different, Not interdependent. Double jeopardy only exists within criminal law. There is no double jeopardy between criminal law and civil law. Like it or not, they are two distinctly separate matters.

But even in that instance, Tom's actions may not have met the criteria for criminal conviction, or a criminal trial jury may not have wanted to convict Tom, but his acts caused Joe's death. Joe's family is entitled to sue Tom civilly for depriving them of the enjoyment of the rest of Joe's lifetime. That's what is called a 'wrongful death' case. Has nothing to do with whether Tom killed Joe deliberately (1st degree murder) or intentionally (2nd degree murder) or even recklessly (manslaughter). It may be that Tom was negligent in causing Joe's death or failed to perform a duty he had to Joe without due regard for his actions (both of these could be voluntary homicide or involuntary homicide. Here's an example that may be clearer in concept: Tom goes to a party to celebrate Harry's new avatar. Tom gets drunk at the party, hosted by Debra. Debra doesn't stop Tom from driving home, even though she's been pouring him drinks non-stop for hours. Tom drives home, but fails to realize Joe is walking across the street. Tom hits Joe, killing him. Tom didn't mean to kill him and Tom was driving within the speed limit and within his lane, but the collision of his car with Joe resulted in Joe's death. Tom was arrested for DUI and vehicular homicide, but Tom did not drink with the intention of getting drunk enough to kill Joe. During the trial, it was discovered the blood evidence was drawn improperly and contaminated, so the BAC was inadmissible. Since there was insufficient evidence to prove Tom was intoxicated beyond the legal limit, and since Tom did nothing else wrong (no other traffic infraction, he just didn't see Joe), the jury decided that Tom was not guilty of DUI or vehicular homicide. That, however, did not mean Tom had no responsibility for Joe's death. Joe's family sued Tom for wrongful death. A civil jury can find Tom's acts of drinking too much caused him to fail to see Joe and caused Joe to die, even if Tom was not convicted of DUI, but was found not guilty of DUI because the BAC evidence was not admissible in criminal court. It's sometimes more confusing than others, but it all explains why there are judges and lawyers. By the way, nobody ever said life was fair, no one ever said fairness of life was a right, and the constitution does not guarantee life will be fair. The constitution only sets forth that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, not a fair outcome.

It is the same question, Harry. But you're tying civil responsibility to criminal conviction. Being sued civilly for responsibility is NOT the same as being not being convicted of a crime, even if it arises from the same fact circumstance. They are two totally different and separate things. First of all, Tony Stewart was not found not guilty. He's never been tried, either civilly for responsibility or criminally for guilt of committing a crime. So your objection doesn't stand in this instance. Secondly, being sued for damages civilly owed is not being punished. Nor is it being prosecuted. The fallacy of your objection is in equating a civil tort with a criminal act. Both can arise from a single event, but they are not the same. Criminal acts have different elements than civil torts. Being found 'not guilty' in a criminal prosecution is the end of prosecution. Being sued civilly for damages is not punishment for a crime, it is being held responsible for the financial and economic consequences of one's actions, independent of any criminal activity or lack thereof. Being found not guilty of a criminal act does not relieve a person of the responsibility for his/her actions. Besides, again, no jury has ever found Tony Stewart not guilty of anything in this matter.

That's not a bad example! No GM exec ever decided to cut corners on ignition switches or Corvair suspension designs KNOWING anybody would die. Thus, no criminal act. But, recklessly gambling on the odds of adverse effects could be a civil tort. If you couldn't sue unless they were convicted of a crime, few people would ever be held accountable for their decisions.

Yeah, right. You mean . . . "No law-abiding citizens allowed to carry their guns into the theatre." All the bad guys have theirs and no sign scares them away.

There's another mag?

Correct. A jury might decide that Ward's actions contributed to the incident, but Stewart's actions did also. A jury might decide that if Stewart did nothing wrong, but Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his death, then they would award nothing to Ward from Stewart. But, if a jury decides Stewart was 70% responsible for Ward's death, and Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his own death, then they would award Ward's family about 70% of the damages deemed appropriate. If Ward's family's attorneys show his life was worth $100 million, then the jury might award his family anywhere up to $70 million but no more. Yes. It's all very complicated, but it's been evolving over 238 years.

They are two separate things. Similar but separate. Apples and oranges. It's like oil and gasoline. Both are required to operate a vehicle, both are petroleum distillates, both are liquids, both are available at a service station, but they are different. You can't put oil in the fuel tank and expect the vehicle to run, and you can't put gasoline in the crankcase and expect it to adequately lubricate the internal moving parts. It would make more sense to me if you could be sued for damages only if you are found guilty of the charge in the first place. If that requirement was in place, you could not be sued for civil torts, such as accidentally colliding with another vehicle, even though you failed to see the other vehicle. Or, if your dog bit someone on the street. Or, if your house caught fire and the fire spread to your neighbor's house. Or, you couldn't sue a doctor who left a forcep in your gut while performing surgery. Or, you couldn't sue the neighbor whose tree fell on your roof. You get the picture; there are innumerable ways you can owe a civil tort (or, liability debt) to someone else without breaking a law. Civil liability is different than criminal activity. And, proving civil liability by "a preponderance of the evidence" requires different elements than proving criminal intent "beyond a reasonable doubt." Because they are different, and the legal procedures are different, they cannot be tied together. By way of example, a driver can be convicted of reckless driving whether or not anyone was injured or damaged. But, just because the driver was not convicted of reckless driving does not make him immune from his civil liability if he did injure or damage someone else. Perhaps there was not enough evidence to convict him "beyond a reasonable doubt" of reckless driving, but there was more than enough evidence to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that he was driving recklessly when he injured the other person or damaged the other person's property. Just ask OJ. The criminal jury decided there was not enough evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he deliberately or intentionally killed Nicole. But, a civil jury, hearing the evidence applied under the different criteria of act/damages/responsibility-liability found there was more than "a preponderance of evidence" that he was responsible for her death. By way of helping follow this: "A Preponderance of Evidence" means in simple terms, more than the other. In other words, 51% or more is a preponderance, 50%-50% is a dead even tie, and 49% is less than a preponderance. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" means a reasonable person would not have doubt. This is a tough one to explain, and the courts have been arguing it for years. Basically, it doesn't require that there be NO DOUBT, nor does it require that there be ANY DOUBT, and it doesn't require that NO ONE can have NO DOUBT, ANY DOUBT, or even just DOUBT. But it does require that a REASONABLE person would conclude without A REASONABLE DOUBT that a hypothesis is fact. Some theorists try to say 'Reasonable Doubt' would consist of a 1% to 5% value for Doubt, but courts refuse to adopt a percentage of evidence of a fact that would constitute 'reasonable doubt' for the purposes of conviction/exoneration. And, just to throw another legal concept factoid onto the fire: There is a difference between being exonerated, found not guilty, not being charged, and having an 'insufficient evidence' ruling. Not being charged means no prosecution was initiated whether or not there was any evidence to support charges; there is no defendant. Insufficient evidence means that at the present time there was not enough evidence established to support filing of charges against a defendant. Being found not guilty can mean anything from the prosecutor failed to prove the charge or the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt or for any number of reasons, the judge or jury did not want to convict the defendant for any number of reasons, including sympathy, jury nullification, or celebrity status overriding evidence. Exoneration means the evidence proved the defendant did nothing wrong in the first place.

I see MENG will be there. I'm curious as to their 'take' on the response to their 1/24 Ford F350 kit. Will there be more 1/24 civilian automotive products coming?

Tony Stewart did not stand trial and he was not found 'not guilty.' The results and findings of the investigation were presented to a grand jury (much different than a trial jury). The grand jury decided not to file criminal charges. The prosecutor was not willing to file criminal charges on his own (which is his job and he has the power to do, independent of a grand jury indictment). So, Tony Stewart has never been charged criminally and has never stood trial on criminal charges arising from this situation, therefore cannot be deemed to have been found 'not guilty' of charges he never faced. Even so, 'double jeopardy' is a short-hand term for the legal protection against being charged criminally and tried criminally more than once for a specific crime. It has nothing to do whatsoever with civil liability. It just means if you are tried criminally and acquitted, you cannot be charged criminally again for the same crime. Civil liability is a separate matter. You might be responsible for someone else's damages even though what you did was not a crime or if it was a crime, you were not charged with it or you may even have avoided conviction for it. It is not at all uncommon for someone to be sued civilly for actions that did not for any number of reasons rise to the level of being or constituting a crime. Just like it is not uncommon to be convicted of a crime but no civil liability was involved. They are two totally different things.

All I can add is that Brad's comment was understated. The pics you see here are spectacular and stunning. But they just don't do this build enough justice! You HAVE to see this creation in person to truly appreciate how amazing it is! It is beyond the limits of imagination. It is overwhelming. If ever finished (LOL, Chris!), it will be truly a lifetime achievement. Chris will have to go into building ships in bottles, because there won't be any topping or even matching this one! ~Dann ~

True. MUCH. But, she has a heart of glass . . .

For the third time, in the third thread: My favorite 'Harry!'

Saw a little of that going North, too, Mike. For a while, it was like a hurricane - high velocity, horizontal gale winds driving sheets of opaque rain, streets flooding, trees being ripped out and crushing cars and blocking the streets. Took me almost an hour to get home, and I don't live THAT far! Glad you made it safely, Mike.

My favorite 'Harry.' Sorry, Harry.

My favorite "Harry!"

Stunning!!!!

Nice.

See y'all there in 12 hours!

You often hear guys refer to their 'first wife' or 'second wife' and so on. I was married previously, too. The Lovely and Gracious Mrs.B, however, is the keeper. It took her awhile to see the humor when I referred to her as "My Last Wife."

That makes you That would make you 107 years old today. Hmmmmmm. 'Bout right!

Congrats SA G!