debate on McClain

[SLVR and Black]

What are you basing performance on?

He played in a Tampa 2 style defense that doesn't blitz LB's so it cant be sacks?

What are you basing the claim he will be "average" on?

Personally, I look at how badly beat up the Colt D was last year and then notice that he only started in 11 out of 16 games that he appeared in. Then, I look at the total number of games that he appeared in and notice that he started in fewer than half of them. My best friend is a huge Colt fan and we watch every single televised Colts game together. Before the signing, I'd never heard his name. The real kicker though is that, again, Pagano is a defensive minded coach and has spent a lot of time around guys like Suggs and Lewis. Fully knowing that the Colts aren't really deep at the LB postion, they still allowed him to walk away.

I hope that he turns out to be a great player, I really do, but I think that the odds are against it.

[Da Swami]

Personally, I look at how badly beat up the Colt D was last year and then notice that he only started in 11 out of 16 games that he appeared in. Then, I look at the total number of games that he appeared in and notice that he started in fewer than half of them. My best friend is a huge Colt fan and we watch every single televised Colts game together. Before the signing, I'd never heard his name. The real kicker though is that, again, Pagano is a defensive minded coach and has spent a lot of time around guys like Suggs and Lewis. Fully knowing that the Colts aren't really deep at the LB postion, they still allowed him to walk away.

I hope that he turns out to be a great player, I really do, but I think that the odds are against it.

Why does he have to be great?

He just has to fill his gap and cover his zone/man. I think your analysis fails to take in coaching evaluation mistakes, scheme changes, coach preferences in personnel, etc. Your failing to account for the dozens of variables that can get a guy released or not re signed other than he has no talent.

I think this is shortsighted.

Some guys just don't do well in some situations but go on to flourish in others. As long as his technique is solid, and he can execute his assignment, he will be an upgrade since Wimbley did not do that well.

Maybe Pagano just has preferences for different type of player to play in his scheme.

That is not an indictment on his skills.

[SLVR and Black]

Why does he have to be great?

He just has to fill his gap and cover his zone/man. I think your analysis fails to take in coaching evaluation mistakes, scheme changes, coach preferences in personnel, etc. Your failing to account for the dozens of variables that can get a guy released or not re signed other than he has no talent.

I think this is shortsighted.

Some guys just don't do well in some situations but go on to flourish in others. As long as his technique is solid, and he can execute his assignment, he will be an upgrade since Wimbley did not do that well.

Maybe Pagano just has preferences for different type of player to play in his scheme.

That is not an indictment on his skills.

Ok, how about this: he's a fifth-year veteran who couldn't crack into the starting rotation on a very bad defensive unit and, prior to the trade, you likely didn't even know that he existed.

And he doesn't have to be great but to hear others saying that he's likely the best Raider LB is, uhmmm, just a tad premature.

[Da Swami]

DJH Raider

Scroll down to the bottom of this link:

Please explain being sued after being fouind not guilty [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

That very question was asked in a law forum and it is answered to back my claims.

Northern Piper is a constitutional law student and this room is monitored by a Juris Doctor.

Also, you asked for a case that proves a person can be sued and prosecuted over the same issue so here it is.

Criminal HIV Transmission: Australia: Defendant in AU$750k Sydney gay civil case now faces criminal charges

While this case is not exactly like the O.J. case, it does show that Australian law recognizes both civil and criminal law as independent of each other and based on its own legal merits.

Here is a case from Ireland showing that your claim that the concept is unique to America is BS too.

BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Foyle and West | Real IRA chief to blame for Omagh

Here is a forum where a Swedish guy talks about a case in Sweden where a Defendant was found not guilty and was sued for civil damages. Go down a few posts and read Hiphinks post.

Civil vs. Criminal. Why isn't this double jeopardy? - Ars Technica OpenForum

This last link is the final nail in the coffin of your weak argument. This is from an Aussie website and it says what I did. Go down to civil law and read the third paragraph down.

Criminal law and civil law, Areas of law, Law and society, Commerce Year 9, NSW | Online Education Home Schooling Skwirk Australia

This should be the end of your nonsense that has hijacked the thread.

[Da Swami]

Everybody always assumes a civil case will follow Mc Clains criminal verdict but I dont see it.

The Plaintiff will claim damages of what?

How was the Victim damaged?

The victim of a crime does not always incur damages that are actionable even in cases where the Defendant is found guilty.

Many in here assume a civil case will follow but there is no basis even if RM is convicted unless the guy was actually damaged and can prove it.

Ain't gonna happen here.

There is no tort or actual damages that are legally recognized.

[kinz]

Took me 5 minutes to find another example of exactly what this fellow was talking about ... a civil suit filed after a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case in the US. I took a couple of minutes and looked through the links you posted, and none were of a civil suit filed after a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case in Australia.

Crime Scene - Judge rules not guilty in Wone case

I really don't care about this one way or another though.

[cheapshotartist]

Ok, how about this: he's a fifth-year veteran who couldn't crack into the starting rotation on a very bad defensive unit and, prior to the trade, you likely didn't even know that he existed.

And he doesn't have to be great but to hear others saying that he's likely the best Raider LB is, uhmmm, just a tad premature.

Word, I've heard a couple of guys saying Burris is our best LB and he has never been in a NFL game.

Because wheeler had a fine year on a horrible team. Curry has a long ways to go to catch wheeler. They aren't even remotely close.

Really? Time will tell.

[Worrier]

The Plaintiff will claim damages of what? How was the Victim damaged?

How about hearing loss? Post tramatic stress? His bowels released when the gun went off and his $200 pants are ruined. He's being treated by an expensive shrink---for life. Oh yea, there are recent threats from McClain, so he had to sell his house and move. Houses are way more expensive where he moved. He's having trouble finding work in his new location. Now, it's going to take at least 5 years to get back to where he was before the incident. Thats just for starters, and with millions of $$$ right there for the taking, I'm sure the victim will have quality counsel.

But, before any civil action happens, the McClain camp will approach the victim. How much will it take for him to walk away from this? Negotiations probably going on right now. Get the victim to have a memory lapse before the appeal.

[Da Swami]

Took me 5 minutes to find another example of exactly what this fellow was talking about ... a civil suit filed after a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case in the US. I took a couple of minutes and looked through the links you posted, and none were of a civil suit filed after a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case in Australia.

Crime Scene - Judge rules not guilty in Wone case

I really don't care about this one way or another though.

I have stated it happens but only when there is a basis for damages that are recignized under civil law that are directly a result of the act. I never said it does not happen. The great majority of cases are when the Defendant is found guilty.

I said that.

All that would happen if that were true would be civil cases would be filed BEFORE criminal allegations were made.

Problem solved!

Cases are not recorded in a manner that cross references criminal cases which is why it is difficult to find.

I posted enough to show the law recognizes civil allegations based on its own merit in common law countries.

Once again, a criminal case has a higher bar to prove and a NOT GUILTY verdict is not a claim of INNOCENCE.

It only means the state did not prove guilt and the Defendant can't be thrown in jail.

It is not the court recognizing innocence.

Nice try but no cigar once again.

The last link is from an Aussie sight and it answers that very question DIRECTLY.

The concept I am explaining applies to all nations of the civilized world who adopted British common law.

That's why the Aussie sight says what I am. How convenient of you to ignore this. How does one research a case where a Defendant was found not guilty? How does one know to cross reference a criminal case with a related civil matter? I know of no law reporters or journals that record cases this way which is why unless its in a news article, it won't be found.

I studied law for 8 years and I am not wrong.

However, it sure is amusing watching novices with no legal education telling me I am wrong.

That's priceless!

The last link is an Aussie sight that EXPLICITLY states it is procedurally proper in the Oz.

The questions before the court are not even remotely similar in civil cases as it is not about guilt but liability.

One can be liable without being guilty of a crime.

[Da Swami]

How about hearing loss? Post tramatic stress? His bowels released when the gun went off and his $200 pants are ruined. He's being treated by an expensive shrink---for life. Oh yea, there are recent threats from McClain, so he had to sell his house and move. Houses are way more expensive where he moved. He's having trouble finding work in his new location. Now, it's going to take at least 5 years to get back to where he was before the incident. Thats just for starters, and with millions of $$$ right there for the taking, I'm sure the victim will have quality counsel.

But, before any civil action happens, the McClain camp will approach the victim. How much will it take for him to walk away from this? Negotiations probably going on right now. Get the victim to have a memory lapse before the appeal.

In theory you are right.

However pain and suffering are rarely awarded except in cases where the Defendant is seriously injured.

The most he would get are damages compensatory in nature.

Your scenario is a steep hill to climb as courts dont just give away damages like that because some guy claims it. In theory you are right but the feasibility will be the key. Expert witness testimony would play in and his damages will be limited making feasibility an issue. The only reason you might see this play out is because the sanctions pale compared to the check an Attorney would get in a shakedown suit. Thats if the guy has a case. McClain has deep pockets. The scenario you painted only happens in those circumstances but only if damages are proven after being scrutinized heavily. This is not automatic as some imply and the cost of legal fees will factor in. If he can prove all of that he will get it but thats not easy unless he actually has those damages and can prove it.

He won't get those just because he claims them.

You can say the moon is made of swiss cheese in a courtroom but the court will demand that you prove it.

The burden of proof is on he who asserts a fact.

Shrink for life?

That would be laughed out of the courtroom and would make his case look like a money grab to Jurors. Pants can be washed and the Defendant has a common law duty to mitigate his own losses. Jurors resent the courts being used this way which is yet another check on excessive claims.

I don't see him getting a huge payday barring some serious damage and his damages will be limited to his actual out of pocket costs.

Yeah, some sort of agreement may take place but only for ACTUAL damages and its not automatic.

However, not now as the case is still pending. The victim also can not just claim a loss of memory at this point and the DA has his statement made under oath. He runs the risk of being prosecuted if he tries that. You really think what happened in the Michael Jackson case is common? That would piss off the court and the D.A. and could get him prosecuted.

I don't know enough about his damages to say what will happen but you don't just claim stuff without possible backlash from the jury and Judge.

My point was people were claiming hes going to hit the jackpot and I doubt that.

The populist misconceptions about our legal system are on display in this room.

[Worrier]

In theory you are right. The only reason you might see this play out is because the sanctions pale compared to the check an Attorney would get in a shakedown suit. McClain has deep pockets.

[Da Swami]

He still needs to have a rock solid case. Should Mc Clain fight this, and prevail, the victim could be sued for defamation.

The other scenario is that Mc Clain will just want this to go away.

The pay day will only be in proportion to what he can prove.

Mc Clain can fight this and drive up his legal fees if he tries to shake him down.

There are no tort or punitive claims so the pay day won't be some deep pocket figure.

Those awards only occur when serious tort damage is warranted.

The settlement, if any, will be moderate either way since he has no serious injuries.

He has no other claims otherwise.

I know the populists will argue with me but thats because they deal in populist misconceptions driven by a misunderstanding of law.

[kinz]

I have stated it happens but only when there is a basis for damages that are recignized under civil law that are directly a result of the act. I never said it does not happen. The great majority of cases are when the Defendant is found guilty.

I said that.

All that would happen if that were true would be civil cases would be filed BEFORE criminal allegations were made.

Problem solved!

Cases are not recorded in a manner that cross references criminal cases which is why it is difficult to find.

I posted enough to show the law recognizes civil allegations based on its own merit in common law countries.

Once again, a criminal case has a higher bar to prove and a NOT GUILTY verdict is not a claim of INNOCENCE.

It only means the state did not prove guilt and the Defendant can't be thrown in jail.

It is not the court recognizing innocence.

Nice try but no cigar once again.

The last link is from an Aussie sight and it answers that very question DIRECTLY.

The concept I am explaining applies to all nations of the civilized world who adopted British common law.

That's why the Aussie sight says what I am. How convenient of you to ignore this. How does one research a case where a Defendant was found not guilty? How does one know to cross reference a criminal case with a related civil matter? I know of no law reporters or journals that record cases this way which is why unless its in a news article, it won't be found.

I studied law for 8 years and I am not wrong.

However, it sure is amusing watching novices with no legal education telling me I am wrong.

That's priceless!

The last link is an Aussie sight that EXPLICITLY states it is procedurally proper in the Oz.

The questions before the court are not even remotely similar in civil cases as it is not about guilt but liability.

One can be liable without being guilty of a crime.

Don't know who is right or wrong, or really care, but its looking like the Australian is right until you can give concrete evidence of a civil case in australia after a not guilty verdict in a criminal case. Honestly, I though doing proper research was the backbone of the law, now just spewing lots of stuff about how educated you are. Its an old legal premise known as put up or shut up.

[djh_raider]

DJH Raider

Scroll down to the bottom of this link:

Please explain being sued after being fouind not guilty [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

That very question was asked in a law forum and it is answered to back my claims.

Northern Piper is a constitutional law student and this room is monitored by a Juris Doctor.

Also, you asked for a case that proves a person can be sued and prosecuted over the same issue so here it is.

Criminal HIV Transmission: Australia: Defendant in AU$750k Sydney gay civil case now faces criminal charges

While this case is not exactly like the O.J. case, it does show that Australian law recognizes both civil and criminal law as independent of each other and based on its own legal merits.

Here is a case from Ireland showing that your claim that the concept is unique to America is BS too.

BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Foyle and West | Real IRA chief to blame for Omagh

Here is a forum where a Swedish guy talks about a case in Sweden where a Defendant was found not guilty and was sued for civil damages. Go down a few posts and read Hiphinks post.

Civil vs. Criminal. Why isn't this double jeopardy? - Ars Technica OpenForum

This last link is the final nail in the coffin of your weak argument. This is from an Aussie website and it says what I did. Go down to civil law and read the third paragraph down.

Criminal law and civil law, Areas of law, Law and society, Commerce Year 9, NSW | Online Education Home Schooling Skwirk Australia

This should be the end of your nonsense that has hijacked the thread.

Good grief, all your links actually prove nothing, except you are wrongin regards to Australia.

The link you provide about the HIV transmission case is the opposite of what I am saying. It is the a civil case where the evidence has turned into a criminal trial. It is not a criminal trial where a person has been found not guilty of a crime and then been sued in a civil trial by the victim.

The other link you provided is from a school webiste for kids. This is for kids in Year 9 in Australia (basically 14-15 years old). Even on this site the first two sentences under civil law states:

Criminal law involves a relationship between the Crown (State) and an individual. Civil law, on the other hand, involves resolving all other disputes. Civil law, for example, covers accidents, contract disputes, or the dividing up of a will. In general, civil law deals with private disputes between private people or organisations.

And further down:

Custodial sentences are almost never an available course of action against those accused of breaking civil laws, unless someone has disobeyed an order of a judge (such as ignoring an injunction against continuing work on a construction site).

So even though you are scraping the bottom of the barrel on websites to prove your point, you have actually proved me right with your own references on Australia.

Oh, and thanks for your insult in another posts telling me to lay of the drink.

Also, who hijacked the thread getting on his legal high horse? Pretty sure it was not me.

[Da Swami]

Good grief, all your links actually prove nothing, except you are wrongin regards to Australia.

The link you provide about the HIV transmission case is the opposite of what I am saying. It is the a civil case where the evidence has turned into a criminal trial. It is not a criminal trial where a person has been found not guilty of a crime and then been sued in a civil trial by the victim.

The other link you provided is from a school webiste for kids. This is for kids in Year 9 in Australia (basically 14-15 years old). Even on this site the first two sentences under civil law states:


And further down:


So even though you are scraping the bottom of the barrel on websites to prove your point, you have actually proved me right with your own references on Australia.

Oh, and thanks for your insult in another posts telling me to lay of the drink.

Also, who hijacked the thread getting on his legal high horse? Pretty sure it was not me.

Cases are not cross referenced like that in legal journals and most cases aren't covered by the media.

I showed you the Aussie sight that explains your system and it EXPLICITLY says what I am without any ambiguity.

Yet, that's not enough.

You are a freaking idiot.

The AIDS case shows that the two systems are based on their own merit.

Show me the statute that forbids it or STFU.