Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Im not even going to get into this argument, I just wanted to use an example that most people would know. Im not going to start writing a book on conflict of laws and what state law would trump etc. Most people have heard of 18 as an adult, 17 as a minor, so for an easy comparison I was just using that. I guess since its an Illinois website I could have used 17 and 16, but the age thing was really not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Im not even going to get into this argument, I just wanted to use an example that most people would know. Im not going to start writing a book on conflict of laws and what state law would trump etc. Most people have heard of 18 as an adult, 17 as a minor, so for an easy comparison I was just using that. I guess since its an Illinois website I could have used 17 and 16, but the age thing was really not the point. Aside from that non argument, what is the relevance of a statutory defense in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 It could be hard though because most likely its statutory and probably poorly written so that there is no knowledge requirements etc. I already stated why I brought up the example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 04:00 PM) I already stated why I brought up the example. I apologize, but could you clarify this a bit more for me... "It could be hard though because most likely its statutory and probably poorly written so that there is no knowledge requirements etc. " What in this case would be considered statutory? I'm missing the connection you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHAMBARONS Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) According to the testimony during the trial, most places serve around 155 degrees. At that temperature it does not scald. At 180 it does. And McDonalds knew of the danger. That's why the jury sided against McDonalds. Also McDonalds corporate policy was that the Temp should be served at 155 but this restaurant purposely violated the policy because they wanted the coffee to stay hotter longer. Cooperate never checked that restaurant to see if policy was being upheld so that made both the restaurant and corporate liable for any injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Id put alot of money on the law that the lady is accused of breaking is statutory and not common law. Almost all criminal laws are statutory. The statute proscribes the conduct that is necessary for conviction. A law like "statutory rape" does not include "knowledge" which is generally required in common law crimes. This is important because prior to statutory law the prosecution had to prove to things: 1) actus reus (criminal act) 2) mens rea (criminal mind). In this case it would be almost impossible to prove mens rea (like in the case of the 18 year old and 17 year old where the 17 year old comes in and says they consented negating the criminal mind). That is why I believe that it was a statutory crime, and that makes it much much harder to defend against. Basically I think the statute says all you have to do is committed the act, regardless of whether you intended to or not. If that is the case it doesnt matter what excuse she uses the act happened, shes guilty. Like statutory rape, it doesnt matter if 1000 witnesses come in and say that the girl lied about her age, was in a 21 club, etc. If the boy had sex with some one under the age of consent, its rape regardless. Sorry if i wasnt clear enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) Id put alot of money on the law that the lady is accused of breaking is statutory and not common law. Almost all criminal laws are statutory. The statute proscribes the conduct that is necessary for conviction. A law like "statutory rape" does not include "knowledge" which is generally required in common law crimes. This is important because prior to statutory law the prosecution had to prove to things: 1) actus reus (criminal act) 2) mens rea (criminal mind). In this case it would be almost impossible to prove mens rea (like in the case of the 18 year old and 17 year old where the 17 year old comes in and says they consented negating the criminal mind). That is why I believe that it was a statutory crime, and that makes it much much harder to defend against. Basically I think the statute says all you have to do is committed the act, regardless of whether you intended to or not. If that is the case it doesnt matter what excuse she uses the act happened, shes guilty. Like statutory rape, it doesnt matter if 1000 witnesses come in and say that the girl lied about her age, was in a 21 club, etc. If the boy had sex with some one under the age of consent, its rape regardless. Sorry if i wasnt clear enough. You weren't for me so thanks for going into more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHAMBARONS Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) With any luck, this verdict will be overturned. And now, if you will excuse me, I have to perform multiple scans on my computer. It will be tough to get overturned. They will have to argue that she didn't get a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 What I think she can hope for is a sentence of time served. I wonder if she will also be subject to sex crimes notification and other measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) It will be tough to get overturned. They will have to argue that she didn't get a fair trial. diggin the sig my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) It was frivolous, even reading those blogs, the people are retarded. If you make hot soup in your microwave, you spill it on yourself placing it on your lap, do you sue the microwave company? can you sue yourself? If something is served hot, most likely it will be hot. you can't sure yourself, but you can sue the microwave company! some loser will hit his thumb with a hammer while putting a nail in the wall, sue the hammer company, idiot jury will award $15,000,000,000 in damages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) you can't sure yourself, but you can sue the microwave company! some loser will hit his thumb with a hammer while putting a nail in the wall, sue the hammer company, idiot jury will award $15,000,000,000 in damages No they don't. People don't realize lawsuits like the McDonalds case happen .000001% of the time. Most just become highly publicized. The majority of the rare cases are settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) No they don't. People don't realize lawsuits like the McDonalds case happen .000001% of the time. Most just become highly publicized. The majority of the rare cases are settled. yea, but i'm still suing you for that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) yea, but i'm still suing you for that post. Damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts