It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Utter Arrogance of Politics!!

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




But consider Occasional Cortex. That she could get elected should just tell you America is sick and tired of "career politicians


She is not 35 yet. She can't run. I think that if Trump decides to run again, he will win. Outside of that I think we have a very good chance to see an Independent win.




posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


This political season is interesting.

Every single democrat running wants to raise taxes.
Every single democrat running wants to defund ICE/border security to some extent.
Every single democrat running wants to bring about socialized medicine.

Warren is no different.


You forgot about disarming us.

www.congress.gov...



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Convenient.


(and I don't even like the guy!!)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not so convenient. He didn't have to spend his life in prison but he is financially screwed.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hence my point!

ETA - If YOU were accused of a crime, and acquitted in a criminal court by due process and a jury of your peers, only to be convicted in a civil court ...would you feel justice had been served??

YOU personally?

P.S. Remember, the different standards of the Law. So, is it wrong?

In the old West, if you shot someone, and killed them, you swung. Those were the rules. Now? They can take your house.
edit on 2/10/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

OJ was not pronounced 'innocent' in as criminal trial. He was pronounced 'not guilty' of murder. He can still be guilty of violating other statutes. I can be 'not guilty' of bank robbery, for instance, and still get fined for speeding.

I agree with your position: if someone is acquitted in a criminal case, they should not be tried for the same actions in civil court. But the law simply don't work that way.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you think the standards of evidence should be the same in criminal and civil proceedings?



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No. Did I give that impression?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

OJ was not pronounced 'innocent' in as criminal trial. He was pronounced 'not guilty' of murder.


Fair point. I stand corrected, and should have worded my statement accordingly.


He can still be guilty of violating other statutes. I can be 'not guilty' of bank robbery, for instance, and still get fined for speeding.


Agreed, in principle, but that's not what happened in this case. OJ was found not guilty on the charge of Murder, but the Jury found for the Plaintiff in Civil Court on the charge of Wrongful Death (essentially murder) and Battery (i.e. the same charge). So, a robbery and speeding comparison is not applicable here.


I agree with your position: if someone is acquitted in a criminal case, they should not be tried for the same actions in civil court. But the law simply don't work that way.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Why do you believe this? (honest question)

Why should trails involving monetary and punitive damages only be held to a standard of preponderance of evidence when criminal trails are held to a standard of beyond any reasonable doubt? Because, at the extremes, a life may be involved? What about the other 99.999% of the time when jail time is involved? Penalizing someone with crippling monetary damages isn't too far of a cry away from jail time.

I absolutely believe civil and criminal charges should be held to the same legal standard. I believe this is one of the major problems with our current justice system.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Eh, wrongful death and murder are two separate charges. Under wrongful death, one simply performs an action or fails to perform an action that wrongly leads to someone's death. Murder, specifically first degree murder (which was the charge against him if I remember correctly), is the intentional act of taking a life. They are similar in that both concern someone dying because of another, but not the same. They differ in the amount of action/inaction on the part of the suspect.

Battery is a different story. That is the intentional act of using physical force to injure another. If he was acquitted on criminal battery and then convicted on civil battery, that would indeed, in my opinion, be double jeopardy.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak


President Trump was not a ‘reality show celebrity’. He was a business tycoon, an American icon


Trump was never an icon. He was seriously mistrusted throughout the 80's for his business malpractices and the way he played the system to avoid taxes. If anythng, The Apprentice helped to raise him again in people's eyes.

Personally, i am neither pro nor anti Trump but it does highly amuse me when people try to re write his story - do people forget a lot of us were around back then?

As to the thread itself, sounds like just another out of touch politician.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Honest answer:

The crippling awards are the problem, not the legal standards. The purpose of civil jurisprudence is to make things right, not to punish. If I do something that injures you financially or materially, the lawsuit you could initiate is not there to punish me, but rather to ensure that you are repaid the amount I cost you in damages.

Punishment is the venue of criminal court.

We started getting away from that philosophy when punitive damages became common. Punitive damages are sometimes necessary to ensure that someone who shows a tendency to continue harming others does not continue to do so... but most civil cases I have seen usually involve asking for punitive damages. This is the problem I have with the OJ Simpson case... it was a purely punitive action taken in civil court. That should not be allowed. Allowing both criminal and civil court to punish over a single actions, rather than using the criminal court to punish and the civil court to right financial/material wrongs, leads to calls like yours to tighten the standards for conviction, which further establishes the civil courts as a punitive body and makes the concept of double jeopardy moot.

I want to return to the original purpose of the courts, not adapt to the new purpose. When one finds themselves off the beaten path, the correct procedure is to return to the beaten path, not to forge their own parallel path.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, we could debate the finer legal points of Murder vs Wrongful Death until the cows come home, and yes, they are different (and I had hoped you wouldn't go there). However, in the case of OJ they amount to arguably the same basic thing.

For my part, I don't like OJ, and frankly I believe he was guilty of Murder, but that's not what the jury found in the criminal case.

Perhaps if Clark and Bailey hadn't been so arrogant, and gone after Murder 2 instead of 1 this discussion would be academic.

See? There's that political arrogance again.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I will agree with that.

ETA - Okay, but that didn't answer my question, which was...why shouldn't they be held to the same legal standard of proof?

ETA 2 -




...but most civil cases I have seen usually involve asking for punitive damages. This is the problem I have with the OJ Simpson case... it was a purely punitive action taken in civil court. ...


So then you agree with me? (missed that part the first time)
edit on 2/11/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Absolutely they should have gone for Murder 2! I said that halfway through the trial. OJ was likely guilty IMHO, but his acquittal was on the DA whether he was guilty or not. If he was innocent, they were prosecuting the wrong man, and if he was guilty, they completely failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I really tried to watch as little of that trial as I could (I considered and still consider it a circus), but I still saw enough doubt introduced and not refuted that I could not have voted for a guilty verdict.

To consolidate replies...

I agree that a civil trial for the express purpose of getting punitive damages for a criminal act that the suspect was already acquitted of is double jeopardy. The civil courts were abused in the OJ Simpson case. However, I do not think that abuse is a good thing, and therefore I do not want to see the standards increased. Doing so will only solidify the use of civil courts as a punitive force instead of an equity force.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join