|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Well, https://crosleylaw.com/blog/eggshell-skull-rule-apply-texas-car-accident-cases/#:~:text=The%20term%20comes%20from%20the,struck%20the%20thin%2Dskulled%20person.
Quote:
The Eggshell Skull Rule The eggshell skull rule, also known as the thin skull rule, is a principle which says that the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defense in a tort case. Attorneys often invoke the eggshell skull rule when the negligence of the defendant aggravates a victim’s pre-existing injury or condition.
In simple terms, the rule says you must take the victim as he or she is found and cannot speculate on what might have happened if the victim had “normal” health or did not have a particular condition that predisposed them to a severe injury. This rule protects victims from their own vulnerability, something over which they have no control.
The term comes from the idea that if an individual’s skull was especially fragile—like the shell of an egg—and another person struck them in the head, the defendant (in the event of a lawsuit) would be liable for any damages they caused when they struck the thin-skulled person. In this case, a “normal” person might have suffered from headaches or mild bruising based on the force of the blow, whereas someone with an especially fragile skull might suffer brain damage or die from the exact same hit.
Regardless of the condition of the victim, however, the eggshell skull rule says the plaintiff bears no fault for their condition and that the defendant must take full responsibility for the injuries he or she caused.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 26 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: ballsalsa]
#26734318 - 06/10/20 12:40 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: koods]
#26734325 - 06/10/20 12:43 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: The only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the jury or the judge who looks at this case.
No the prosecutor says it’s a crime. The jury decides if the they are guilty of that crime.
So nothing's settled then.
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: No, it didn't say he had no evidence. It said he had no evidence in his Tweet. Quit make believing.
Jesus you have to argue for the sake of arguing. My wording is an accurate representation of what the article said.
No, it's not. It said Trump presented no evidence, it didn't say whether or not Trump had evidence.
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Trump didn't say where he got the story. And the author of the Sputnik story may not have known about the OAN story.
You like to make believe that Putin and Sputnik have magical superpowers that allow them to know absolutely everything that goes on in the world. I won't make believe with you.
Yes trump cited OAN in his tweet..
Sputnik cited Trump's tweet which also included the reference to OAN.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kwyjibo
Stranger

Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,261
Loc: California
Last seen: 11 minutes, 42 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said: You can use reasonable force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent harm. There's no threat of imminent harm
So you're saying the cops WERE justified for pushing the guy away!
Stop make believing.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: ballsalsa]
#26734332 - 06/10/20 12:45 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Well, https://crosleylaw.com/blog/eggshell-skull-rule-apply-texas-car-accident-cases/#:~:text=The%20term%20comes%20from%20the,struck%20the%20thin%2Dskulled%20person.
Quote:
The Eggshell Skull Rule The eggshell skull rule, also known as the thin skull rule, is a principle which says that the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defense in a tort case. Attorneys often invoke the eggshell skull rule when the negligence of the defendant aggravates a victim’s pre-existing injury or condition.
In simple terms, the rule says you must take the victim as he or she is found and cannot speculate on what might have happened if the victim had “normal” health or did not have a particular condition that predisposed them to a severe injury. This rule protects victims from their own vulnerability, something over which they have no control.
The term comes from the idea that if an individual’s skull was especially fragile—like the shell of an egg—and another person struck them in the head, the defendant (in the event of a lawsuit) would be liable for any damages they caused when they struck the thin-skulled person. In this case, a “normal” person might have suffered from headaches or mild bruising based on the force of the blow, whereas someone with an especially fragile skull might suffer brain damage or die from the exact same hit.
Regardless of the condition of the victim, however, the eggshell skull rule says the plaintiff bears no fault for their condition and that the defendant must take full responsibility for the injuries he or she caused.
Good article. 
It beats Enlil calling my question stupid because I'm not a lawyer.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
I'm certainly not a lawyer either and it seems clear that this rule applies to lawsuits. I'm not sure how/if it or a similar doctrine applies in criminal assault cases.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 26 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: ballsalsa]
#26734393 - 06/10/20 01:05 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What you said:
Quote:
It said Trump presented no evidence, it didn't say whether or not Trump had evidence.
You’re always misrepresenting what other people say. My wording accurately represents theirs.
This is exactly what i said:
Quote:
The Sputnik article said the president tweet was presented without evidence
Sputnik
Quote:
Trump on Tuesday without offering evidence cast doubt on the protester's true motives.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: ballsalsa]
#26734405 - 06/10/20 01:10 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The eggshell plaintiff doctrine has no bearing on it at all. That is about damages. The crime occurred when the cop pushed the old man. If the old man had died, or does die, as a result, it'll be manslaughter at least. If the old man lives, it'll be battery and assault, at least. Whether the old man touched the cop or not has zero bearing on the outcome. The cop's response was not reasonable under any analysis.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: koods]
#26734450 - 06/10/20 01:31 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: This is exactly what i said:
Quote:
The Sputnik article said the president tweet was presented without evidence
Sputnik
Quote:
Trump on Tuesday without offering evidence cast doubt on the protester's true motives.
There's more from Sputnik:
Quote:
Sputnik said:
Trump on Tuesday without offering evidence cast doubt on the protester's true motives.
"Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment", Trump said via Twitter, while referencing a report from the right-wing One America News Network (OANN).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Someone caught the 75 year old on cam just before he got pushed:
A protester was upset with him because "he said he came down here for fun... I think he's looking to get punched in the face".
Here's another angle of the push I haven't seen yet:
I clearly have to make this disclaimer: the result of the push was horrible and if Enlil is correct that the police were supposed to let the guy swipe his phone along their bodies while they were clearing the square for curfew and not push him, then the police should be punished with assault and battery.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 1 hour, 15 minutes
|
|
Hmmm it's still hard to see if there was any contact.
He was moving fairly quickly towards that police line... aggressively? briskly? merrily? (he was there having fun) and like, it's a police line, ding dong ding they were never going to let him walk through it. I still have no idea what he was trying to achieve??
Bet he's wishing he put that helmet on his head instead of wearing it as a bangle
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: ...the question remains weather citizens are entitled to swipe their hands across a cop without getting pushed away. Enlil refused to answer that question for some strange reason.
It's a stupid question. It has nothing to do with him being a cop. You can use reasonable force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent harm. There's no threat of imminent harm, and certainly nothing to suddenly make it "reasonable" to push an old man to the ground and crack his skull open.
It may be a stupid question for a group of lawyers, but most of us here aren't lawyers.
So you're saying the cops WERE justified for pushing the guy away! Sure, the end result was bad, but I don't think the push was intended to crack the guy's skull open. And I KNOW there are many others who would agree that wasn't the cops' intent.
I guess it's not just your wife thats blind 
Enlil literally said in the quote above that there was NO imminent harm thus the push was NOT justified.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26736274 - 06/11/20 09:07 AM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
No one swiped their phone across police radios dude. It's very obvious that he's an old man who gesticulates a lot and he was obviously gesturing to their gear with a phone in his hand.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 26 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26736277 - 06/11/20 09:09 AM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A protester was upset with him because "he said he came down here for fun... I think he's looking to get punched in the face".
Anyone who protests the police is looking to get punched in the face.
The motives of the old man is irrelevant. He didn’t anything requiring the cops to attack him
If your support of Maduro, Putin, MBS, Assad wasn’t enough, now your down for this authoritarian bullshit here.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,357
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 9 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: koods] 1
#26736689 - 06/11/20 11:57 AM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I like how it doesn’t matter to you whether the man was trying to provoke authorities or not, and then go on to call out Maduro. Exactly what do you think is causing Maduro to crack down?
I’m not making excuses for the police here OR Maduro but the motives absolutely do matter.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26736696 - 06/11/20 11:59 AM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: I guess it's not just your wife thats blind 
Enlil literally said in the quote above that there was NO imminent harm thus the push was NOT justified.
It's very obvious that he's an old man who gesticulates a lot and he was obviously gesturing to their gear with a phone in his hand.
So I'm supposed to take Enlil's word rather than trust my own eyes? You say he was "obviously" gesturing to their gear, but what do you think he was telling them? Did you watch the last video?
Stable Genius watched the last video and said "He was moving fairly quickly towards that police line... aggressively? briskly? merrily?" I don't know, it is a good question as he correctly posed it, but you seem to think Enlil gets to decide, and you believe koods when he tells you it's "an already settled question".
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,357
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 9 hours, 15 minutes
|
|
A push shouldn’t be justified at all, but because were so used to seeing people shot in the head with rubber bullets and then cracked over the back with batons, this all seems pretty mild.
The whole point of protests like this is to force the state’s hand: either give in to demands (like a functional democracy) or do the more likely thing: crack down on the protests with state sanctioned violence. This is why the “outside agitators looting” narrative is always dredged up, multiple mayors and governors have been caught telling this lie in the past few weeks, the state needs an excuse to crack down so that the crack down itself doesn’t backfire on them. Because we all know the state won’t give in to the people’s demands.
I mean Christ all joe Biden has to say to pacify a good number of these people is to announce a commission right now, full of activists and scholars, etc, to defund the police. He doesn’t even have to mean it. But he can’t do that, can’t even toss a bread crumb to the people he’s counting on for winning him in the election, instead he says to increase police budgets. Pelosi and Schumer do the same thing. Sure they’ll put on dashikis and kneel for 11 minutes but they aren’t doing shit to solve this problem.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
Where did I say anything about believing koods? Dont believe Ive made any remarks to koods this entire convo.
It's a video bro I watched it with my own eyes as well.
Moving briskly? Looked to me like he walked up to the line. Is it illegal to talk to cops? Is it illegal to gesture? The only person reaching and believing asinine narratives here is you; what with your "tried to grab his gun" and jamming radio scanners and assaulting the officer with his phone rhetoric.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: I guess it's not just your wife thats blind 
Enlil literally said in the quote above that there was NO imminent harm thus the push was NOT justified.
It's very obvious that he's an old man who gesticulates a lot and he was obviously gesturing to their gear with a phone in his hand.
So I'm supposed to take Enlil's word rather than trust my own eyes? You say he was "obviously" gesturing to their gear, but what do you think he was telling them? Did you watch the last video?
Stable Genius watched the last video and said "He was moving fairly quickly towards that police line... aggressively? briskly? merrily?" I don't know, it is a good question as he correctly posed it, but you seem to think Enlil gets to decide, and you believe koods when he tells you it's "an already settled question".

This is enlils original post
Quote:
There's no threat of imminent harm, and certainly nothing to suddenly make it "reasonable" to push an old man to the ground and crack his skull open.
To which you replied
Quote:
So you're saying the cops WERE justified for pushing the guy away!
The only logical conclusion is that you dont know how to read; I was just pointing that out in what you quoted.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26736809 - 06/11/20 12:59 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: It's a video bro I watched it with my own eyes as well.
Exactly. And we've heard different opinions from different people who watched it.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Moving briskly? Looked to me like he walked up to the line. Is it illegal to talk to cops? Is it illegal to gesture?
Dude, listen to you. Of course those things aren't illegal. Did you not see the guy challenge a police line as they were trying to enforce curfew? Did you not see the guy walk up to the police line and wave his hands within inches or less of police equipment? You're not arguing in good faith here.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: The only person reaching and believing asinine narratives here is you; what with your "tried to grab his gun" and jamming radio scanners and assaulting the officer with his phone rhetoric.
No, I don't believe any of those things. My point was that some people saw a potential threat with the guy's hand getting too close to police's weapon, and police are trained not to allow that.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: This is enlils original post
Quote:
There's no threat of imminent harm, and certainly nothing to suddenly make it "reasonable" to push an old man to the ground and crack his skull open.
To which you replied
Quote:
So you're saying the cops WERE justified for pushing the guy away!
Actually, this was Enlil's original post:
Quote:
You can use reasonable force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent harm. There's no threat of imminent harm, and certainly nothing to suddenly make it "reasonable" to push an old man to the ground and crack his skull open.
You left out the first part, which is what I was responding to.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: The only logical conclusion is that you dont know how to read; I was just pointing that out in what you quoted.
Another logical conclusion is that you're not arguing in good faith, and cherry picking things to fit your argument.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|