|
Didn’t that happen fairly recently? Like, that exact scenario: dad, child, molester, he openly admits to it, jury says “we’re good”
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Isn’t that what jury nullification is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Isn’t that what jury nullification is? I think that's entirely on the initiative of the jury. I'm pretty sure judges won't allow a lawyer to stand up and argue that the victim deserved it, even if they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
OP please watch the documentary file “A Time To Kill” with Morgan Freeman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:In movies, or sometimes in real life in jest, people will say "no jury would convict me!" If the information was relevant to a specific defense, it would come in during guilt/innocence phase; if it's not relevant, but the defendant just stands up and shouts it, then the judge could order a mistrial, or a good prosecutor will rip them to shreds on cross examination since they called themselves to testify. During sentencing phase, that kind of thing would generally get talked about as a mitigating factor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I think that's entirely on the initiative of the jury. I'm pretty sure judges won't allow a lawyer to stand up and argue that the victim deserved it, even if they did. What happens is that defense attorneys will stand up in closing and say something along the lines of "Let me tell you about jury nullification." The prosecutor will immediately object and the judge (if he gives a poo poo) will tell the defense attorney to knock it off. But who cares about that order? The jury has already heard the magic phrase. The only price paid for a potential windfall is, at most, a minor chastisement. And one of the appellate courts' favorite things to do is reverse convictions because some trial idiot judge lets the defense attorneys make improper arguments, so the prosecutor has to venture into improper territory to pull the jury out and convince them to do their job. The real pro defense attorneys have whole thesauruses (thesaurii?) full of clever analogies and phrases describing jury nullification. Like "you are the conscience of the community, you should tell the government what the community thinks of jailing men who protect their children." The real fun happens in codefendant trials. Imagine two dudes on trial for whatever crime, and one attorney stands up and says "give the victims their pound of flesh from that guy, not my guy. My guy has a family!" So, yes, against the rules but there's no reason not to do it and lots of reasons to do it. Any attorney (defense, prosecution, or judge), in my jurisdiction at least, with any experience in criminal practice has this arrow in their quiver.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Didn’t that happen fairly recently? Like, that exact scenario: dad, child, molester, he openly admits to it, jury says “we’re good” If it’s what I’m thinking of, the guy walking in on his son being molested and beat the everloving poo poo out of the molester, and told the cops he would have killed the guy, and the cops said “yeah me too” and didn’t arrest him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Provocation is a defence. Almost always not to the matter of guilt, but most countries practice it as a mitigating circumstance. Norway has provocation as an affirmative defence to a charge of battery (but not bodily harm), so-called rule of retortion (retaliation). Chiefly meant as victim protection. Beating the poo poo out of or a pedo caught in the act would qualify for provocation as a mitigating circumstance which potentially could commute the sentence entirely. And if the prosecutor had a pulse he'd offer a waiver anyway so it'd never see the inside of a courtroom. There would also be an issue of right of self defence as applied to a third person. You are entitled to do whatever is necessary within the class of immediate threat to avert harm under that statute and rape is classified as such a serious crime I believe you could drat near kill a child rapist if you stopped when they were incapacitated and incapable of further harm. I'd be fine arguing that. Actually killing though? Probably not, not to say one couldn't have perceived it as a murder attempt and proceeded to kill the assailant. Which would probably scan. Retribution later would just plain be vigilantism and probably not much of a mitigating factor. We don't have jury nullification or even juries though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Provocation is a defence. Almost always not to the matter of guilt, but most countries practice it as a mitigating circumstance. Not my jurisdiction, since it was basically exclusively used by husbands to justify murdering their wives, or in gay panic cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:If it’s what I’m thinking of, the guy walking in on his son being molested and beat the everloving poo poo out of the molester, and told the cops he would have killed the guy, and the cops said “yeah me too” and didn’t arrest him. That happened in Fort Bend County, Texas a few years back and I'm pretty sure the father didn't even hit the guy too many times, and he just died. They declined to arrest, and I'm pretty sure he was never charged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Oddhair posted:That happened in Fort Bend County, Texas a few years back and I'm pretty sure the father didn't even hit the guy too many times, and he just died. They declined to arrest, and I'm pretty sure he was never charged. This is the one I’m thinking of https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna334991
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Can I file a workers comp claim if I’m injured while at work due to puncturing my eardrum cleaning wax out of my ear canal using a car key
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:This is the one I’m thinking of "...I got him in a bloody puddle for you right now."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Can I file a workers comp claim if I’m injured while at work due to puncturing my eardrum cleaning wax out of my ear canal using a car key Christ, just buy one of those blue bulb ear syringes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Can I file a workers comp claim if I’m injured while at work due to puncturing my eardrum cleaning wax out of my ear canal using a car key Was it a work car key and work related earwax?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"...I got him in a bloody puddle for you right now." I think this came up in the thread before and someone said that the cops are instructed to not charge under such circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I think this came up in the thread before and someone said that the cops are instructed to not charge under such circumstances. Doubt that. They'd probably have to get that ok'd by someone somehow. That said if I were the prosecutor in charge I would waiver that case in a heartbeat just to get a guilty on verdict, no way would I be confident getting that through a panel of judges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 07:24
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Not my jurisdiction, since it was basically exclusively used by husbands to justify murdering their wives, or in gay panic cases. Should have probably said, there's a provocation definition and justifications of that nature wouldn't cut it. Self defence might. But that also has some very specific definitions. Norway has special statutes for family violence and violence against exposed groups and minorities. In which provocation (retortion) isn't a defence, nor a mitigating circumstance. If the prosecutor erroneously subsumed the case under the wrong charge, the charge would either be altered by the judge or mistrialed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Can you elaborate on that? I do have a divorce in my past and every year for like the last 12 years earn the max credits for SS and am track to get max payout. Have two kids it’d ideally go to if anything were to happen. if your ex can claim SS benefits on your account (either as a divorced spouse when you both hit retirement age or via widow benefits when she qualifies and you're dead), it won't affect your own benefits or the potential payout to your kids (if you die while they are minors). The family maximum benefits that could be paid out to your kids and spouse if you die is not affected by any benefits your ex may receive. When I worked at SSA, sometimes bitter dudes would demand that we prevent their ex wife from being able to qualify benefits on their account. Not because it would take anything away from them, but because they're just spiteful. Fortunately the SSA law doesn't give them any input.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
One great thing about SSA is everything is online and you can piece it together if you are a lawyer One bad thing about SSA is the ALJs are wildly disparate in what they do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:If the prosecutor erroneously subsumed the case under the wrong charge, the charge would either be altered by the judge or mistrialed. Am I correct in believing that in the US, judges can't alter charges, that's exclusively the privilege of prosecutors?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Criminal lawyers can speak to this but I think charging is the exclusive discretion of the prosecutors. Judges can throw cases out at a few points though. So that’s kind of altering charges I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Am I correct in believing that in the US, judges can't alter charges, that's exclusively the privilege of prosecutors? Maybe. It's certainly not very common as far as I'm aware, as a function of a more inquisitorial system. It's still limited by criminal procedure and international human rights, because of due process, preparing a defence, yadda yadda yadda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Am I correct in believing that in the US, judges can't alter charges, that's exclusively the privilege of prosecutors? I'm going to say "generally yes" because there may be some weird thing I'm not thinking of but, yeah. I've gotten charges thrown out because the warrant was factually incorrect and a different charge was appropriate. The judge can't just change it to the correct thing, *that* warrant gets tossed out and if they want to keep prosecuting they have to do a new warrant or new indictment on the new accurate charge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
It’s very hard to talk generally about law !!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Unless it isn't!!! But yeah it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
With that condo building that collapsed in Florida, is that the kind of thing where insurance is not going to pay out because the association was aware for years that the building was unsound and took no steps to correct it? Would the residents be able to sue the association if their losses are not covered? I know that it probably wouldn’t matter since the association would just go bankrupt and would not be able to pay everyone but I’m curious as to what is going to happen given what has been reported.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 05:14
|
|
|
therobit posted:With that condo building that collapsed in Florida, is that the kind of thing where insurance is not going to pay out because the association was aware for years that the building was unsound and took no steps to correct it? Would the residents be able to sue the association if their losses are not covered? I know that it probably wouldn’t matter since the association would just go bankrupt and would not be able to pay everyone but I’m curious as to what is going to happen given what has been reported. The other thing I wondered is what about the other part of the building the government deemed had to be demolished emergently due to impending hurricane/concern for further collapse. Would some kind of renters or home owners insurance cover this? Or can they be like oh well we don't cover you if the government blows up your belongings on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
The thing is that with most condos the association carries the insurance on the structure itself, and the unit owners just buy insurance on what is inside the unit from the drywall in. Which is really why I am asking the question. The policy holders (the association ) for the insurance on the building were possibly negligent in failing to correct known issues, but the unit owners are the ones with the most to lose. Are they just out of luck?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
Depends what the policy specifically says. There’s all kinds of litigation about stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 10:03
|
|
|
therobit posted:With that condo building that collapsed in Florida, is that the kind of thing where insurance is not going to pay out because the association was aware for years that the building was unsound and took no steps to correct it? Would the residents be able to sue the association if their losses are not covered? I know that it probably wouldn’t matter since the association would just go bankrupt and would not be able to pay everyone but I’m curious as to what is going to happen given what has been reported. Insurance companies in situations like this frequently just deny and force you to sue regardless of if it’s covered or not as long as they can come up with any rationale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
The litigation over the Surfside condo collapse is going to last 10+ years so who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Besides, most of the insurance claimants are dead. Who's *left* to sue? Like one teenager and a cat?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Besides, most of the insurance claimants are dead. Who's *left* to sue? Like one teenager and a cat? ... estates? If my house explodes and kills me, is my estate not entitled to have the house repaired by my homeowner's insurance (assuming we win the lawsuit)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:... estates? Yeah it’s this. Probably also the condo association if there were any surviving owners (and there were several). But the insurance company is going to try and deny it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:... estates? Yeah but that's gonna all have to be sorted out. Many of them may not have any heirs other than the state, if whole families died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
The condo will go bankrupt and no one will get anything. The American story. The builders are long gone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The condo will go bankrupt and no one will get anything. The American story. there will be a litigation trust created if the condo goes bankrupt to preserve and litigate its claims of course that may only benefit the lawyers but it will be created Hieronymous Alloy posted:Besides, most of the insurance claimants are dead. Who's *left* to sue? Like one teenager and a cat? the most relevant policy would be owned by the condo association, individual homeowners policies are probably going to pay out without too much fuss evilweasel fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jul 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
What if it was negligent construction (it very well may have been). Would the condo insurance cover that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:
Yeah, I think the question I'm groping toward is "who has standing to sign a client/representation agreement for the homeowner's association if all members of said association are dead" Would it have to be an officer of the association? I imagine there are some survivors, people who owned a condo in the building but happened to not be there at the time. That teenager who survived might be a member once his parent's estate sorts out, but ... . most HoAs have a requirement that you own a condo in the building to vote, and nobody still owns a condo in the building because there is no building. Also all HOA records were probably stored in the building and are now destroyed. There may not be a copy of the HoA agreement surviving. edit: actually, quote:A letter sent in April from the president of the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association said that damage to the doomed building’s basement garage had “gotten significantly worse” since an inspection about two and a half years earlier and that deterioration of the building’s concrete was “accelerating.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/06/28/miami-condo-deterioration-worsening-april-letter-says/7790478002/ So that solves that problem! quote:Over seven pages, Wodnicki provided an overview of the major repairs required for the building. She noted that in fall 2018, as documents released by the town of Surfside show, the association hired engineering firm Morabito Consultants to inspect the building. That inspection found a “major error” in the design of the building, crumbling concrete columns in the garage area beneath the structure, and predicted that failure to fix the problems in the “near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.” Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 14:37
|
|