Starbucks Sued Over Tip Jar

[Gregori]

As I see it, the biggest problem with the jury system is the whole "justice best served by a jury of one's peers" myth.

 

For starters, the folks chosen to be your peers are often not. I would suggest that many of the smarter folks find a way to defer / avoid jury duty. Not all, by any means, but enough to skew the pool to include more 'peers' who are of less than average intelligence, or have nothing better to do. Some few jurors will be fortunate enough to have employers who pay them their standard salary while on jury duty, but the rest have to effectively use vacation or unpaid time off to perform their 'civic duty' and for many this is either a hardship, an inconvenience, or even just distasteful.

The longer the trial (typically the 'important' ones) the higher the personal cost to serve, the more likely you have a pathetic selection. For a good example, look at the OJ jury. I saw some interviews of the jurors after the fact, and my impression was that most of them were unfit to buy their own groceries, much less reach an intelligent verdict.

Eliminate the economic punishment for participation, and the situation would improve. (Perhaps the court system should pay replacement wages? Perhaps employers should be required to pay wages? Either way the cost is ultimately borne by everyone, not just those unlucky enough to be sitting in the courthouse.)

 

A secondary issue with jury of peers is that, by design, they're all ignorant. the average Joe knows no more about the law than they see on network TV. And the lawyers, who DO know about the law, work at playing the emotions and gullibility of the average Joe. The prevailing party in jury cases is often due more to which party had the better (ahem) more theatrical and devious lawyer, not which party was RIGHT.

A panel of PROFESSIONAL jurors is a possible solution to this. Make all lawyers go through an 'apprentice' period where they must serve as jurors for a period of time before being allowed to practice law. Or perhaps we should have juries comprised of lawyers who aspire to be a judge. All new judges must selected from THIS pool after having served some requisite period of time. These juries would then be people who had studied and understood the law, and would (in theory) be more swayed by factual evidence and testimony than by theatrics, and be less often tricked or played by a clever devious, unscrupulous lawyers.

 

There's also the whole "committee factor" - in general, it seems that after a group exceeds two or three participants, the more people involved lower the overall quality of the result. Since when are 12 randomly chosen people going to be more effective working together than a carefully selected 4? (The exception, of course would be physical labor, which a jury is not.)

 

I've sat on juries two times: once a civil case (injury suit) and once a criminal case (robbery/assault) and was NOT impressed with the system. Were I to receive a jury summons today, I'd be torn -- wishing to counterbalance the ineptitude of the masses, weighed against the pointlessness of trying to do so.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

I think it was Mark Twain who once said he didn't like his fate being hung on a dozen people not smart enough to get out of jury duty...

[Ken H.]

OK so the whole jury system is great ideologically, but sucks in practice, so what’s the alternative?

 

Not a rhetorical question, what IS a better system of fair justice?

 

[Twisties]

It's not that I think juries are all that great, plenty has been documented about their failings. On the other hand though, second guessing them based on partial media accounts, biased and intentionally inflammatory sources, or other misrepresentations, is by far the more ridiculous position to be in.

[Dave McReynolds]

It's not that I think juries are all that great, plenty has been documented about their failings. On the other hand though, second guessing them based on partial media accounts, biased and intentionally inflammatory sources, or other misrepresentations, is by far the more ridiculous position to be in.

 

So second-guessing them based on in-depth media accounts, impartial and non-combustible sources, and representations that aren't misrepresented would be okay then, I guess?

[DavidEBSmith]

Gregori, I hardly know where to start.

 

Let me just say, I've experienced the jury system from inside the jury box as a juror, and from outside the box as a lawyer.

 

It's a myth that smart people don't show up for jury duty or that the only people who serve are too dumb to get out of jury duty. Every jury pool I've seen is a remarkably representative cross-section of the public. If you think the jury pool is stupid, you think the American public is stupid.

 

Federal law and most states require employers to give jurors time off to serve. Some states require employers to pay them for a limited time while serving. Rather than bemoan having to take time off without pay. I would suggest that we advocate that more states require employers to pay their employees and support them while they're doing their civic duty.

 

Rather than getting a "pathetic" selection for the longer or more "important" trials, my personal experience is that the jurors on longer and more complicated trials take their responsibilities extremely seriously, more so than on the "less important" cases.

 

As to "ignorant" juries, the jury is supposed to apply the law as instructed by the judge. Jurors shouldn't have their own notions of what the law is, any more than they should be going out and finding evidence that wasn't presented by the parties. There may be questions of law or fact that have been resolved by the parties or otherwise that the jury shouldn't be wasting time and effort on. There may be issues of law resolved in one way or another that may not be obvious to a jury (e.g. choice of state law). It's the function of the judge and the lawyers to work out what the applicable law is, not the function of the jury.

 

As to the myth that juries are swayed by theatrics, or can be "tricked" by the cleverer lawyer - it just doesn't happen. (This is usually an excuse thrown out there by the losing side). Juries are very good at sniffing our lawyer BS, and while there are many cases in which the jury may be unduly sympathetic to one side, it's almost always because the party or the facts are sympathetic, not because of the lawyer's performance skills.

 

The jury system is one way that citizens connect with civic society. Denigrating or working to eliminate the jury system separates citizens from civic society and reinforces the notion that government is something that "they" do to "us".

 

 

 

[Twisties]

It's not that I think juries are all that great, plenty has been documented about their failings. On the other hand though, second guessing them based on partial media accounts, biased and intentionally inflammatory sources, or other misrepresentations, is by far the more ridiculous position to be in.

 

So second-guessing them based on in-depth media accounts, impartial and non-combustible sources, and representations that aren't misrepresented would be okay then, I guess?

 

As Whip sometimes says Dave, that response is just disappointing.

[Gregori]

Let me just say, I've experienced the jury system from inside the jury box as a juror, and from outside the box as a lawyer.

My experience is limited to one side of the rail in front of the jury box, and I've only been there twice. You've clearly got the edge there.

 

It's a myth that smart people don't show up for jury duty or that the only people who serve are too dumb to get out of jury duty.

In my (limited) experience, that's exactly what seemed to be the case. YMMV, I guess.

 

If you think the jury pool is stupid, you think the American public is stupid.

FIFY.

 

Federal law and most states require employers to give jurors time off to serve. Some states require employers to pay them for a limited time while serving. Rather than bemoan having to take time off without pay. I would suggest that we advocate that more states require employers to pay their employees and support them while they're doing their civic duty.

That's essentially what I suggested.

 

Rather than getting a "pathetic" selection for the longer or more "important" trials, my personal experience is that the jurors on longer and more complicated trials take their responsibilities extremely seriously, more so than on the "less important" cases.

No doubt, the selected jurors will take it more seriously than jurors in a less complex case. But I submit that the pool of available jurors for lengthy trials will have a different makeup, because of the time required, and financial impact.

One of the times I was called for jury duty, it was expected to be a lengthy trial. When the 'weeding' was done, almost everyone who had been laptop user, and more than half of those who'd been readers (in the waiting process) was excused because of hardship. (We'd spent almost 7 hours in the waiting lounge, I'd been people watching for way too long...) To my observation, the TV watchers were not so heavily impacted.

 

{quote]As to "ignorant" juries, the jury is supposed to apply the law as instructed by the judge. Jurors shouldn't have their own notions of what the law is (...snip...)

To clarify - I differentiate ignorance from stupidity. Ignorance you may be remedy, but you're stuck with stupidity.

But I disagree with the premise that jurors shouldn't have knowledge of the law. Practically every learned person of any profession has their own perspective and opinion, so IMO a panel of professional jurors isn't stacking the deck in any negative way.

Would you propose to gather panels of randomly selected people with no training in accounting or finances to decide budgetary or fiscal issues? Oh, wait - that DOES sound like government. Never mind.

 

As to the myth that juries are swayed by theatrics, or can be "tricked" by the cleverer lawyer - it just doesn't happen.

My experience would indicate otherwise. In the personal injury trial I was a juror for, there were only two of us who 'sniffed out the BS' and spent several days in 'deliberation' working to convince the other 10 that the poor, pitiful plaintiff DIDN'T deserve a payout from the financially sound large company. (His injuries were grievous, but were entirely caused by his actions - failure to follow operating instructions, and bypassing several safety devices on an already highly modified machine.) But the company lawyers were very matter-of-fact, and simply outclassed by a very aggressive personal injury team - the majority of the jury bought into it.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

After twenty people had been freed from death row when evidence surfaced to show they were innocent or had been convicted improperly, then Ill. Gov. George Ryan halted executions in 2000. Every one of those people had been convicted by a jury trial, presumably one of the more "important" trials where EeeBee believes the jurors take their responsibilities more seriously. What does that say about the "less important" trials, where they don't take their responsibilities quite so seriously?

 

I don't have a better suggestion for the administration of criminal justice in this country than the jury system, but I do believe the evidence shows, as in the example above, that we have a duty as citizens to question the results of cases decided by juries, as we have a duty to question many aspects of our society.

[Agent_Orange]

"that we have a duty as citizens to question the results of cases decided by juries, as we have a duty to question many aspects of our society."

 

Not in Orlando.

 

http://tyrannyfighters.com/florida-tyranny-fighters-forbidden-from-handing-out-jury-nullification-info-near-courts/

[MotorinLA]

"that we have a duty as citizens to question the results of cases decided by juries, as we have a duty to question many aspects of our society."

 

Not in Orlando.

 

http://tyrannyfighters.com/florida-tyranny-fighters-forbidden-from-handing-out-jury-nullification-info-near-courts/

 

Interesting reading. Looking at the "Juror's Handbook" I can see why the Chief Judge is pissed off. Although there is good information in there, it is certainly slanted in a particular direction. Given previous discussions on this board about law, I can see how this could lead to some problems. It encourages all persons involved as a juror to question the laws in place and render a verdict based on their personal feeling about a given law, not wheather or not the defendant is guilty of violating that law. Based on opinions expressed on this board, I could see some here finding a defendant "not guilty" of misdemeanor speeding, because they personally don't agree with speeding laws. It is definitely a complex issue.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm not an attorney, and hopefully someone who is will chime in here if I'm wrong about this, but my impression is that unless a juror engages in misconduct, he can't be prevented from voting "guilty" or "not guilty" in any case, be it criminal or civil. He can be subject to all the peer pressure in the world by other jurors, and kept in the jury room until the cows come home, but I don't think anyone can force his vote, if he has enough willpower to resist.

 

I don't think this is anything new. I think defense attorneys have always looked for jurors who they thought might be a holdout for acquittal and thereby hang the jury in a case where the evidence went against the defendant, but where the defendant or his case might have certain characteristics that would find sympathy in certain quarters ("caught 'em in bed together and blew the sucker away; clear case of self-defense").

[MotorinLA]

As to the myth that juries are swayed by theatrics, or can be "tricked" by the cleverer lawyer - it just doesn't happen. (This is usually an excuse thrown out there by the losing side). Juries are very good at sniffing our lawyer BS, and while there are many cases in which the jury may be unduly sympathetic to one side, it's almost always because the party or the facts are sympathetic, not because of the lawyer's performance skills.

 

If juries can't be swayed by tricks or theatrics, why do lawyers in personal injury cases often try to make their clients look as hurt and pathetic as possible? Rolling them into court in a wheel chair wearing their neck collar, etc. "Look at my poor client, permanently scarred physically and emotionally by this horrendous ordeal!" If they could win the case without the sympathy vote, why then do they appeal to the jury's empathy so frequently instead of the law? Because it works!

 

Read the narrative provided from the McD case.

 

Judy Liebeck goes into detail about how debilitating this incident has been to her mother. Essentially saying that it completely ruined her life, disfigured her and made her disabled. Pretty much everything short of claiming that her mother has a panic attack everytime she drives by a McD's or sees a cup of coffee.

 

Judy Liebeck says, "And we started thinking, why is McDonald’s insurance not paying for the medical? I have insurance on my home. If someone comes in and breaks an arm or hurts themselves, I expect my insurance to pay for it. That’s what I’m paying insurance for."

 

They have money/insurance, they should pay!

 

Judy Liebeck continues,"They came back with an offer of—what was at that point $10,000 in medical, they came back with an offer of $800. And we were just appalled."

 

Those cruel, heartless bastards! They should pay!!!

 

I certainly understand why McD's don't want to automatically assume liability for all problems that are attributed to their restaurants. "My finger got caught in the entrance door. I tripped over the parking stop in the parking lot. I had an adverse reaction because the milkshake contains milk. Etc, etc, etc."

 

If it got out that McD's gave a "hand-out" to every Joe who demanded it, there'd be a line around the block.

 

Why should McD's pay? Because they have insurance? Because they are a big company? Because they don't want to pay for something they don't see as their responsibilty?

 

David, I don't think that you can claim (at least not with a straight face) that sympathy for the "victim" in this case played no role in the verdict. In order to win a large settlement in this particular case, it was clearly necessary to portray the injuries sustained as horrific and life altering.

 

So, I think it is incorrect to assert that theatrics play no role in civil cases.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

David, I don't think that you can claim (at least not with a straight face) that sympathy for the "victim" in this case played no role in the verdict. In order to win a large settlement in this particular case, it was clearly necessary to portray the injuries sustained as horrific and life altering.

 

Well, I haven't seen the evidence that was presented to the jury, and you haven't seen the evidence that was presented to the jury. But apparently you haven't considered the possibility that the injuries she suffered may actually have been horrific and life altering. If you want to call it "sympathy" to conclude that someone who suffers horrific and life altering injuries should be compensated, I don't guess I can argue with that.

 

In a personal injury case the plaintiff's lawyers may try to portray their client sympathetically, as having suffered horribly. Certainly they'll portray their client in the best light possible. The defense will try equally as hard to portray the plaintiff unsympathetically, as having suffered only minor injuries, if any, while portraying the defendant sympathetically, as a poor unfortunate innocent.

 

What I find constantly amazing is that people are hung up on the supposed misrepresentations by plaintiffs as if plaintiffs' lawyers were snake charmers, magically hoodwinking the jury, with nobody around to stand up and stop them. In reality, in major PI cases, there are a whole bunch of very good and very expensive lawyers on the defense side trying every trick in their book to poke holes in the plaintiffs' case. Indeed, corporate defendants like McDonalds have financial and legal resources that vastly outstrip what most plaintiffs and plaintiffs' firms can bring to the table. I mean, think about this - poor McDonalds couldn't afford the very best legal team available and they got outlawyered? Really?

 

In the McDonalds case, the victim was apparently sympathetic in that the jury believed she suffered horribly and wrongfully. McDonalds apparently couldn't convince the jury that she didn't, or that McDonalds didn't act wrongfully. There has been a massive PR campaign since then to try to reverse the outcome in the court of public opinion.

 

Sometimes, one side loses not because the lawyers for the other side fooled the jury, and not because the jury was stupid, and not because the other side unfairly played on the jury's sympathy, but because the facts and law were against them. Sometimes one side loses fair and square. And they never, ever accept that.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

After twenty people had been freed from death row when evidence surfaced to show they were innocent or had been convicted improperly, then Ill. Gov. George Ryan halted executions in 2000. Every one of those people had been convicted by a jury trial, presumably one of the more "important" trials where EeeBee believes the jurors take their responsibilities more seriously. What does that say about the "less important" trials, where they don't take their responsibilities quite so seriously?

 

You can't blame those juries for not figuring out that the confessions they were told about and convicted upon were obtained through torture. There's plenty of blame to go around in those cases, but the juries shouldn't share in it.

[MotorinLA]

David, I don't think that you can claim (at least not with a straight face) that sympathy for the "victim" in this case played no role in the verdict. In order to win a large settlement in this particular case, it was clearly necessary to portray the injuries sustained as horrific and life altering.

 

Well, I haven't seen the evidence that was presented to the jury, and you haven't seen the evidence that was presented to the jury. But apparently you haven't considered the possibility that the injuries she suffered may actually have been horrific and life altering. If you want to call it "sympathy" to conclude that someone who suffers horrific and life altering injuries should be compensated, I don't guess I can argue with that.

 

Part of the problem is that regardless of how horrific and life altering the injuries may be, sometimes the "victim" is responsible for the cause of those injuries, rather than the defendant. You show the jury horrific pictures of personal injuries and they will tend to feel sympathy, ragardless of the true cause. I believe this is commonly referred to as "inflammatory" evidence.

 

In a personal injury case the plaintiff's lawyers may try to portray their client sympathetically, as having suffered horribly. Certainly they'll portray their client in the best light possible. The defense will try equally as hard to portray the plaintiff unsympathetically, as having suffered only minor injuries, if any, while portraying the defendant sympathetically, as a poor unfortunate innocent.

 

The problem with this is when the defendant is in fact innocent, or in the cases I have personal knowledge of, the defendant was legally in the right. Yet the jurors are persuaded to find for the plaintiff through exaggerated portrayals of injuries, which are far beyond actual injury, and the plaintiff is painted as the "victim" of the defendant's actions.

 

What I find constantly amazing is that people are hung up on the supposed misrepresentations by plaintiffs as if plaintiffs' lawyers were snake charmers, magically hoodwinking the jury, with nobody around to stand up and stop them. In reality, in major PI cases, there are a whole bunch of very good and very expensive lawyers on the defense side trying every trick in their book to poke holes in the plaintiffs' case. Indeed, corporate defendants like McDonalds have financial and legal resources that vastly outstrip what most plaintiffs and plaintiffs' firms can bring to the table. I mean, think about this - poor McDonalds couldn't afford the very best legal team available and they got outlawyered? Really?

 

You'd have to agree that regardless of how expensive the lawyers are, it is a lot harder to paint a billion dollar franchise as a sympathetic victim, than the "innocent" house-wife from Albuquerque...

 

The fact that the lawyers have a lot to gain (literally millions of dollars in some cases) from the outcome of these trials makes me question your claim that many lawyers would not go as far as possible to assure a victory in their cases. It certainly smacks of "conflict of interest" from my perspective. Just look how far some prosecutors are willing to go to get a conviction and their personal gain is arguably small compared to the enormous sums that some lawyers receive upon a win at trial.

 

In the McDonalds case, the victim was apparently sympathetic in that the jury believed she suffered horribly and wrongfully. McDonalds apparently couldn't convince the jury that she didn't, or that McDonalds didn't act wrongfully. There has been a massive PR campaign since then to try to reverse the outcome in the court of public opinion.

 

It certainly seems that McD's initial stance that they were going to play hardball with the plaintiff, back-fired on them. Did the jury find for the plaintiff wrongly? Maybe, maybe not. Just pointing out that in these kinds of cases the defendant can be right and still be found liable, because a jury can be swayed by issues other than the legal facts of the case. Again, I ask you to look at the insane amount of civil litigation that takes place in our country (people from other countries laugh at the ridiculousness of some of the personal injury cases that our courts entertain). You can't tell me that this is simply because we are all a bunch of irresponsible asshats and that making money by getting the sympathy of a jury has nothing to do with it.

 

Sometimes, one side loses not because the lawyers for the other side fooled the jury, and not because the jury was stupid, and not because the other side unfairly played on the jury's sympathy, but because the facts and law were against them. Sometimes one side loses fair and square. And they never, ever accept that.

 

And sometimes one side loses through manipulation of the system. I can never, ever accept that this is morally right.

 

 

[MotorinLA]

After twenty people had been freed from death row when evidence surfaced to show they were innocent or had been convicted improperly, then Ill. Gov. George Ryan halted executions in 2000. Every one of those people had been convicted by a jury trial, presumably one of the more "important" trials where EeeBee believes the jurors take their responsibilities more seriously. What does that say about the "less important" trials, where they don't take their responsibilities quite so seriously?

 

You can't blame those juries for not figuring out that the confessions they were told about and convicted upon were obtained through torture. There's plenty of blame to go around in those cases, but the juries shouldn't share in it.

 

No share in it? If they were given information about how the "interviews" were conducted, how can they not have any share in it? "Yes, they interrogated the defendant for 24 hours straight and he's got bruises all over his body, but clearly the confession was voluntary."

 

Without referring to a specific case this is certainly only speculation on my part, but to make a generalized statement that the juries had no share in those wrongful convictions, seems like just as much speculation. Wasn't there a statement about the ability of jurors to "sniff out BS" in another post? So, they are excellent at "sniffing out BS" in personal injury cases, but lose this ability in criminal cases?

 

[Dave McReynolds]

After twenty people had been freed from death row when evidence surfaced to show they were innocent or had been convicted improperly, then Ill. Gov. George Ryan halted executions in 2000. Every one of those people had been convicted by a jury trial, presumably one of the more "important" trials where EeeBee believes the jurors take their responsibilities more seriously. What does that say about the "less important" trials, where they don't take their responsibilities quite so seriously?

 

You can't blame those juries for not figuring out that the confessions they were told about and convicted upon were obtained through torture. There's plenty of blame to go around in those cases, but the juries shouldn't share in it.

 

While my statement above could imply that I blamed the jury for the erroneous convictions, I really meant something broader than that. What I mean to say is that jury trials, whether criminal or civil, can and do make erroneous decisions, and the fact that a decision was reached in a jury trial doesn't make it any more sacrosanct, in my view, than a trial decided by a judge.

 

I'm sure there's enough blame to go around in the Illinois trials mentioned above. Prosecutors may have concealed evidence, defense attorneys may have been incompetent, the judge might have been asleep, and the jury may have failed at its primary responsibility of finding fact, or any combination of the above.

 

And, of course, juries are just as likely to erroneously acquit as erroneously convict ("if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!").

[DiggerJim]

And, of course, juries are just as likely to erroneously acquit as erroneously convict ("if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!").

Hey, c'mon he was not guilty! Didn't do it in fact.

[ghaverkamp]

And, of course, juries are just as likely to erroneously acquit as erroneously convict ("if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!").

 

I would hope that juries are far more likely to erroneously acquit than they are to erroneously convict. If they aren't, then we're doing it wrong.

[DavidEBSmith]

No share in it? If they were given information about how the "interviews" were conducted, how can they not have any share in it? "Yes, they interrogated the defendant for 24 hours straight and he's got bruises all over his body, but clearly the confession was voluntary."

 

 

Speaking of the Jon Burge cases only: Burge generally used torture methods that left no marks, such as attaching a hand-cranked telephone generator to the suspect's genitals, or putting a plastic bag over the suspect's head, or the ever-popular hitting the suspect on top of the head with telephone books. In the case of Andrew Wilson, who had physical marks, it was explained that he got the marks resisting arrest. At trial, the allegations of torture were the word of an accused criminal - in Wilson's case, a cop-killer - against the word of a hero cop, with no corroborating evidence.

 

The investigation of Burge took over 10 years before he was fired. and almost 40 years before he went to jail. If you want to blame the criminal juries for not uncovering the wrongdoing, I respectfully suggest you are suffering from unrealistic expectation.

[DavidEBSmith]

You'd have to agree that regardless of how expensive the lawyers are, it is a lot harder to paint a billion dollar franchise as a sympathetic victim, than the "innocent" house-wife from Albuquerque...

 

Not when there is a prevalent popular assumption that personal injury plaintiffs are lazy, lying crooks looking to rip off a big pocket corporation for an easy payday.

 

My experience here is working in an agency that every day defends a big pocket government defendant against poor little old ladies who allegedly fall in holes in the sidewalk, or allegedly get beat up by the police, or allegedly get any number of bad things done to them by the billion-dollar bureaucracy. Incredibly sympathetic plaintiffs regularly get nothing, nada, the big bagel. And we're not even expensive lawyers, believe you me on that. And this is Cook County, one of the most favorable venues for plaintiffs. In the suburbs and downstate there's even less sympathy for plaintiffs.

 

The crisis in the courts, the need for tort reform, is overblown hype created by the people and entities who stand to gain by tilting the scales even further in their favor than they already are. Big wins by undeserving plaintiffs are an anomaly.

 

The problem with this is when the defendant is in fact innocent, or in the cases I have personal knowledge of, the defendant was legally in the right. Yet the jurors are persuaded to find for the plaintiff through exaggerated portrayals of injuries, which are far beyond actual injury, and the plaintiff is painted as the "victim" of the defendant's actions.

 

The problem here is, you're confusing liability and damages. If there is no liability, it doesn't matter how exaggerated the damages are.

 

An example from a recent case: A police officer arrested Bad Guy for, something, I dunno. He put Bad Guy in the back of the police car. Bad Guy somehow got into the front seat and drove off in the police car. A chase ensued. Bad Guy crashes the police car into Innocent Victim, who is badly hurt and has huge hospital bills. Innocent Victim sues Bad Guy and the City, claiming that the City didn't take proper precautions to keep Bad Guy from stealing a police car and crashing into people. The ultimate outcome? Under law, the City has immunity for injuries that arise out of the pursuit of an escaped prisoner (so we're motivated to go out and catch the escaped prisoner and not worry about getting sued). So, Innocent Victim, who was indisputably f***ed up by the crash and as sympathetic as could be, gets nothing from the City. Go collect from Bad Guy, the court says.

 

Sometimes you may think someone is actually innocent or actually guilty, but the standard is what the law says.

[Matts_12GS]

No share in it? If they were given information about how the "interviews" were conducted, how can they not have any share in it? "Yes, they interrogated the defendant for 24 hours straight and he's got bruises all over his body, but clearly the confession was voluntary."

 

 

Speaking of the Jon Burge cases only: Burge generally used torture methods that left no marks, such as attaching a hand-cranked telephone generator to the suspect's genitals, or putting a plastic bag over the suspect's head, or the ever-popular hitting the suspect on top of the head with telephone books. In the case of Andrew Wilson, who had physical marks, it was explained that he got the marks resisting arrest. At trial, the allegations of torture were the word of an accused criminal - in Wilson's case, a cop-killer - against the word of a hero cop, with no corroborating evidence.

 

The investigation of Burge took over 10 years before he was fired. and almost 40 years before he went to jail. If you want to blame the criminal juries for not uncovering the wrongdoing, I respectfully suggest you are suffering from unrealistic expectation.

 

A piece of heater hose on the soles of the feet leaves no bruises...

 

I read that on the internet.

And now so have you.

 

It must be true!

[Kathy R]

Someone gave me a Starbucks gift card a few months ago and I just used it on a Smothie. (I can't have coffee)

 

Not a tip jar in sight.

Something good came from something bad.

[MotorinLA]

You'd have to agree that regardless of how expensive the lawyers are, it is a lot harder to paint a billion dollar franchise as a sympathetic victim, than the "innocent" house-wife from Albuquerque...

 

Not when there is a prevalent popular assumption that personal injury plaintiffs are lazy, lying crooks looking to rip off a big pocket corporation for an easy payday.

 

My experience here is working in an agency that every day defends a big pocket government defendant against poor little old ladies who allegedly fall in holes in the sidewalk, or allegedly get beat up by the police, or allegedly get any number of bad things done to them by the billion-dollar bureaucracy. Incredibly sympathetic plaintiffs regularly get nothing, nada, the big bagel. And we're not even expensive lawyers, believe you me on that. And this is Cook County, one of the most favorable venues for plaintiffs. In the suburbs and downstate there's even less sympathy for plaintiffs.

 

The crisis in the courts, the need for tort reform, is overblown hype created by the people and entities who stand to gain by tilting the scales even further in their favor than they already are. Big wins by undeserving plaintiffs are an anomaly.

 

The problem with this is when the defendant is in fact innocent, or in the cases I have personal knowledge of, the defendant was legally in the right. Yet the jurors are persuaded to find for the plaintiff through exaggerated portrayals of injuries, which are far beyond actual injury, and the plaintiff is painted as the "victim" of the defendant's actions.

 

The problem here is, you're confusing liability and damages. If there is no liability, it doesn't matter how exaggerated the damages are.

 

An example from a recent case: A police officer arrested Bad Guy for, something, I dunno. He put Bad Guy in the back of the police car. Bad Guy somehow got into the front seat and drove off in the police car. A chase ensued. Bad Guy crashes the police car into Innocent Victim, who is badly hurt and has huge hospital bills. Innocent Victim sues Bad Guy and the City, claiming that the City didn't take proper precautions to keep Bad Guy from stealing a police car and crashing into people. The ultimate outcome? Under law, the City has immunity for injuries that arise out of the pursuit of an escaped prisoner (so we're motivated to go out and catch the escaped prisoner and not worry about getting sued). So, Innocent Victim, who was indisputably f***ed up by the crash and as sympathetic as could be, gets nothing from the City. Go collect from Bad Guy, the court says.

 

Sometimes you may think someone is actually innocent or actually guilty, but the standard is what the law says.

 

I suspect that living in Illinois versus California may have something to do with it, too. Seen many cases out here were liability was found even when the "victim" was in the wrong criminally. The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable. Still makes little sense to me, so the explanation must be something other than the facts of the case.

[ghaverkamp]

I suspect that living in Illinois versus California may have something to do with it, too. Seen many cases out here were liability was found even when the "victim" was in the wrong criminally. The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable. Still makes little sense to me, so the explanation must be something other than the facts of the case.

 

Whenever I read things like that, I wonder if folks have really seen "many", when, actually, it's likely that the oddball cases stand out.

 

It is not the least bit surprising that someone acting criminally could still be injured due to someone else's actions. What is it about acting illegally on an injured party's part is it that would make negligence or intentional acts suddenly devoid of any responsibility?

 

If I'm driving to sell some stolen property (only reason I'm on this trip in this locale) and a drunk crosses the center line and injures me, why shouldn't I be able to recover? You can imagine the headline in such a story, but does it really make any difference? Isn't the drunk drive just as liable?

 

Of course, I'm not really convinced there are that many lawsuits like that, unless they're excessive force or similar suits.

[MotorinLA]

I suspect that living in Illinois versus California may have something to do with it, too. Seen many cases out here were liability was found even when the "victim" was in the wrong criminally. The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable. Still makes little sense to me, so the explanation must be something other than the facts of the case.

 

Whenever I read things like that, I wonder if folks have really seen "many", when, actually, it's likely that the oddball cases stand out.

 

It is not the least bit surprising that someone acting criminally could still be injured due to someone else's actions. What is it about acting illegally on an injured party's part is it that would make negligence or intentional acts suddenly devoid of any responsibility?

 

If I'm driving to sell some stolen property (only reason I'm on this trip in this locale) and a drunk crosses the center line and injures me, why shouldn't I be able to recover? You can imagine the headline in such a story, but does it really make any difference? Isn't the drunk drive just as liable?

 

Of course, I'm not really convinced there are that many lawsuits like that, unless they're excessive force or similar suits.

 

Please re-read.

 

The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable.

 

Never stated that the criminal has no right to be covered by civil liability.

 

And "many" in this case refers to many. Not one, not a few, MANY.

[ghaverkamp]

The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable.

 

Right. I described a situation that resulted directly from the "victim's" criminal actions. Without being in the middle of an attempted sale of stolen goods, victim would not have been on the road.

 

And "many" in this case refers to many. Not one, not a few, MANY.

 

Yeah. I don't believe you.

[Twisties]

The injury/claim resulted directly from the "victim's" (criminal) actions, yet the other party was held civilly liable.

 

Right. I described a situation that resulted directly from the "victim's" criminal actions. Without being in the middle of an attempted sale of stolen goods, victim would not have been on the road.

 

And "many" in this case refers to many. Not one, not a few, MANY.

 

Yeah. I don't believe you.

 

I'd like to see them come up with 5, nationwide, in the last 20 years.