(04-09-2012 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: First... The McDonald's coffee case is a bad example of frivolity. They absolutely did increase the temperature to make the coffee more desirable. Whether it was for taste, or as others mentioned, that it was still hot when they got to work is immaterial. They intentionally did it and knew it could be a problem.
Exactly. That's what I've said. They put the public at risk to sell more coffee.
Quote:Showing the pictures of the injury are equally immaterial.
No it isn't. She had 3rd degree burns and couldn't walk anymore. It's material because people laugh at the $2 million figure (which was reduced by the judge to $600k) without realizing the extent of her damages.
Quote:There are PLENTY of times that people are injured tragically through no fault of anyone. That doesn't make the other examples void. The fact that you have to tell people not to put their hands inside the wood chipper is evidence of a problem. Of course, this is what plaintiffs attorneys do.... They show a burned leg and a rich corporation or a clean cut picture of a kid and prey on the sympathy and jealousy of the jury. Those aren't pertinent facts to guilt or innocence, but that doesn't mean that people like you can't win or lose cases with them.
You seem confused on the elements of a tort (well, a great many things, but primarily this). You're right in that the picture has nothing to do with fault (ie, duty and breach), but that doesn't make it immaterial because it certainly has a lot to do with the final tort element, damages.
Torts 101
Duty - McDonalds, as everyone does, has a duty to act reasonably and avoid foreseeable dangers to others
Breach - McDonalds boiled its coffee at a temperature that would cause severe burns (because it helped sales)
Proximate causation - McDonalds decided to boil its coffee at 180 degrees and served it to Ms Liebeck, who less than a minute later spilled it on herself when trying to remove the lid
Damages - McDonalds is responsible for the damages it caused Liebeck (medical bills, pain and suffering etc). The jury in the case actually assessed Liebeck for 20% fault for not being more careful opening up the coffee lid. Her medical bills were several hundred K, and punitive damages were tacked on because McDonalds had received 700 complaints of serious burns and did nothing about it, though the judge later reduced it to $600k.
In the end, believe me, you don't want to have traded places with that woman. The media's "lol she didn't know coffee was hot" narrative plays well to uninformed people, but how many times have you removed a coffee lid and had it splash on you? It's happened to me a lot, even when I'm being careful. And sure we all know it's hot, but do you expect that it will cause 3rd degree burns like THAT?
Sticking your hand in a woodchipper is a foreseeable, open and obvious risk, which is a defense to a tort so you would not be able to recover. I don't think most people understood or appreciated the extent of the burns a coffee spill could have.
Quote:Second I didn't say, or at least I'm convinced I didn't say because I know better, that 51/49 is the burden.
No I think you did, and you assumed the word "probable" has its ordinary meaning. And you were wrong.
Quote:You said, in essence, that if the da can make up a story that a reasonable person would believe that would constitute a crime, then a person can be arrested. That is not the burden at all. Not even close.
You're wrong. Yes, the burden is a reasonable belief that he committed a crime. The DA gets to present only his side of the story (READ: only the facts favorable to him).
Quote:The fact that a boy is dead, if that is all we had, is certainly compelling. The problem for your side is that we have much more.
HOW is that a problem if the defense isn't allowed to present its case before the grand jury/judge in a probable cause hearing??? It isn't.
Quote:We have zimmermans phone call...
Which the DA doesn't have to present. (But he probably would because it helps his case).
Quote:And his history of phone calls....
Which actually helps the DA's case if anything.
Quote:We have his statement and claim of self defense... We have a witness that corroborates at least a portion of his story and we apparently have physical evidence which supports his story.
Which the DA doesn't have to present.
Quote:Certainly not proof of innocence... But pretty well stretches the bounds of belief to think that someone would call the police and then pull a gun on a kid with skittles minding his own business and shoot him with the police moments away...
Again, the evidence doesn't have to be presented and even if it did there is nothing to contradict the story I told you before.
Quote:That just doesn't pass the smell test.... Which is why those who want to string up Zimmerman introduced or created all of this false evidence against him...
The only "false evidence" was the NBC manipulation of the one 911 tape, which was completely unnecessary to make the case against him.
Quote:You should re-read gates yourself. Most of the "totality" information that you are relying on... Like the supposed utterance if coon,
I'm not relying on that at all.
Quote:the supposed... He's suspicious,
The 911 call well establishes Z thought he was suspicious to any reasonable factfinder.
Quote:he's black...
Not relying on it.
Quote:And the supposed "proof" that it was Martin screaming don't appear to be evidence at all.
Expert testimony that it was Martin screaming is evidence, at least for the purposes of a probable cause hearing, where the evidence standard is relaxed (eg, hearsay is admissible).
Quote:The BIGGEST thing going for Zimmerman is that he called the police and stayed on the phone with them for most of the time....
No it doesn't. It could help establish the necessary intent for the prosecution's case.
Quote:And then apparently stood around waiting for them to arrive after the event.
Because a person ran out of their house and saw him standing over a dead kid.
Quote:It certainly appears that there was a struggle, which you wouldn't normally have if someone pulled a gun on someone from a distance.
Once again, the evidence of the struggle doesn't have to be presented at a probable cause hearing. But it will be brought up at trial, and when it is the prosecution can still establish that the struggle was over when Zimmerman grabbed his gun and someone (according to experts, Martin) was pleading for his life.
Quote:If he had a gun and was itching to use it, why would you get close enough to the person to get punched?
This is stupid. The ellipses and wandering, sometimes incoherent thoughts are one thing, but have you read anything I've been saying at all? You try to debunk one set of facts that no one on here is proffering and act as if it disproves probable cause, which is wrong on so many levels. I've long said I believe the most likely story is Martin threw the first punch, there was a scuffle, and it either ended with Zimmerman pulling out his gun OR it ended and then Zimmerman pulled out his gun; Martin pleaded for his life, and Zimmerman ignored the pleas and committed murder.
Quote:I mean seriously.... Other than the death, what evidence do you have of a crime? Remember... Your opinion isn't evidence. I'm confident you will say "that the kid wasn't doing anything", but that is opinion, not fact, and the witness at the scene, Zimmerman, BEFORE the shooting, said he was acting suspicious.
I've listed the evidence over and over.
1. He shot and killed an unarmed kid--a witness who ran outside immediately after the gunshot saw him standing over Martin.
2. Experts believe to a reasonable scientific certainty the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape wasn't Zimmerman.
3. His statement in the 911 call that he was following Martin and they "always get away" and Martin's girlfriend says Martin called her and said he was scared, which taken together are evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
4. The funeral director says he saw no bruises on the hands of Martin
Present this to a judge in a probable cause hearing and you get your arrest warrant. If you're a judge and you're presented with this listed evidence (and the 4th one isn't really necessary because it's a rebuttal to the affirmative self defense Z is bound to raise at trial), you simply ask yourself if there is a substantial probability Zimmerman committed a crime BASED ONLY ON THESE FACTS. For the ten millionth time, I'm not saying he's guilty. He can present his own evidence at trial to establish self defense. But there's definitely probable cause and a possible murderer is walking around scot free, which quite frankly is f'ked up.
Quote:Besides, counselor.... If your side of the argument is so obvious and mine is so arrogantly misinformed about the law, why hasn't he been arrested yet? Perhaps I'm not so misinformed, and/ or your side isn't so obvious. Or perhaps all of those idiots in Florida and within the justice department are equally misinformed as I am....
Boy... Talk about arrogant
I've explained why I think he hasn't been arrested yet at least a dozen times. Apparently with you it's a complete waste of my time so I'm not going to do it again.