Calling LAWSOHARD...

"Tom McParland" (tommcparland) 11/11/2013 at 18:02 • Filed to: LAWLOPNIK

1

9

...now I'm no big city lawyer, but I'm pretty sure !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! However, I am curious to what someone actually trained in law thinks about this thread. I have no intention of engaging with this dude, and neither should any of you, but I would like to know what the legal case is here (if any). Here is a patriotic Rally Fighter for the rest of you.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Gamecat235 > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 18:04

7

Dat Rally Fighter...

Tyler's SVT Focus Hates Him > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 18:08

0

I don't think a background in law is required, just common sense. Even if it went to trial (which it wouldn't because self-defense), no jury in their right mind would convict the paralyzed dude after seeing the videos of those asshats riding around.

Tom McParland > Tyler's SVT Focus Hates Him 11/11/2013 at 18:09

0

I totally agree....but I always like to learn stuff in terms of the real-deal specifics.

BKRM3 > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 18:10

0

I think it's not worth my time commenting on it, is what I think =)

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 18:17

4

If I've learn one thing in my life, it's this:

"Never comment on the bikers v range rover story"

Group B-raaaaaaaaaap! > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 18:47

0

That commenter is beyond full of it. But there is always that one person who will stick up for Casey Anthony.

desertdog5051 > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 19:06

3

It is so sad. The FP is becoming a less and less civilized and less of a conversational place. But, that article/post/event, does bring out the opinions of many. Personally, I express mine with friends in face to face or voice over a phone as we can converse without assuming/guessing what you meant. Misinterpretations and things like that cause butthurt.

getchapopcorn > Tom McParland 11/11/2013 at 20:14

1

I don't really do any criminal law at all other than the odd traffic ticket for a friend — I can't imagine where the grounds for a charge would come from. I don't know all of the facts and haven't been following it closely enough to really delve into it but from what I have read I'm not even sure that he's going to be civilly liable to the gentleman referred to in the post.

Since this is criminal, if he were to be guilty of something it would have to be a crime that requires no more than 'criminal negligence' (very low on the rung crimes), since there's been no assertion that he meant to run the other guy down, or, between the choice of getting away without hitting him and getting away with hitting him, that the driver of the RR simply didn't care whether he hit the guy. Criminal negligence is a higher threshold to meet than civil negligence, so I definitely don't see where the 'mens rea' for any charge could be met outside of some NY law with strict liability that is applicable (there may very well be such a law — I have NO clue).

Long story short, I don't think the RR driver has anything to worry about on the criminal front. Also, I'm just finishing up a 14 hour day so I apologize if the the above two sentences were just pure rambling, nonsense. It's time for a drink!

Tom McParland > getchapopcorn 11/11/2013 at 20:32

1

Thanks for the response...makes sense. Since I studied Philosophy in college with a specialization in logic and argumentation, I toyed with the idea of going to law school. So I'm always fascinated how cases are argued from the perspective of precedent and causality.