responsibility of someone who claims they are a victim

[mau99]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Massachusetts


What is the term/rule/law concerning the responsibility of a "victim" to not break a chain of events when they claim to have been victimized. The "victim" who was right by a phone as well as her cell phone, does not call the police at the time of her claim that she was victimized, or go to the police immediately after this happening. The next day she goes to the police claiming that the person she is accused of victimizing her, broke her eyeglasses. If the police were called to the scene, they could see first hand if her glasses were really broken, but because she didn't, who knows where the broken glasses really came from?

 

[BigMouthWino]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Massachusetts


What is the term/rule/law concerning the responsibility of a "victim" to not break a chain of events when they claim to have been victimized. The "victim" who was right by a phone as well as her cell phone, does not call the police at the time of her claim that she was victimized, or go to the police immediately after this happening. The next day she goes to the police claiming that the person she is accused of victimizing her, broke her eyeglasses. If the police were called to the scene, they could see first hand if her glasses were really broken, but because she didn't, who knows where the broken glasses really came from?

Sounds like you already have a good defense for when your case goes to trial. Good luck.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Massachusetts


What is the term/rule/law concerning the responsibility of a "victim" to not break a chain of events when they claim to have been victimized. The "victim" who was right by a phone as well as her cell phone, does not call the police at the time of her claim that she was victimized, or go to the police immediately after this happening. The next day she goes to the police claiming that the person she is accused of victimizing her, broke her eyeglasses. If the police were called to the scene, they could see first hand if her glasses were really broken, but because she didn't, who knows where the broken glasses really came from?

What you have there is known as "reasonable doubt".

A REASONABLE person would probably have called police right away after having been a victim of a crime. The fact that this person did not casts a shadow of doubt on her claim that the perpetrator had damaged her glasses in this alleged crime since she never reported the crime at the time it happened.

Of course, she could just as easily not reported that her glasses were broken because she may have considered broken glasses an inconsequential loss, not worth involving the police over (as in, she didn't consider it an emergency).

Both sides will get to tell their story to the judge/jury, and the they will get to sort out what they think really happened.

 

[Just Blue]

posting hx,///////////

 

[mau99]

This person would not consider broken glasses an inconsequential loss. She was practically homeless, having left her 3 young children in the midwest w/ her ex-husband who paid her $500 to get out of their life. The police kept the glasses. She wears glasses all the time. Seven months later she went to
Walmart and got new glasses and submitted the bill for the glasses and the eye exam to be paid by the person she accused of
breaking her glasses. I consider her an opportunist.

What you have there is known as "reasonable doubt".

A REASONABLE person would probably have called police right away after having been a victim of a crime. The fact that this person did not casts a shadow of doubt on her claim that the perpetrator had damaged her glasses in this alleged crime since she never reported the crime at the time it happened.

Of course, she could just as easily not reported that her glasses were broken because she may have considered broken glasses an inconsequential loss, not worth involving the police over (as in, she didn't consider it an emergency).

Both sides will get to tell their story to the judge/jury, and the they will get to sort out what they think really happened.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Seven months later she went to
Walmart and got new glasses and submitted the bill for the glasses and the eye exam to be paid by the person she accused of
breaking her glasses. I consider her an opportunist.

So, seven months later has the accused been charged? Unless the accused is found guilty (or pleads guilty) and is ordered to make restitution, she will have to sue the accused (probably in small claims court) to recover the money.

 

[sandyclaus]

This person would not consider broken glasses an inconsequential loss. She was practically homeless, having left her 3 young children in the midwest w/ her ex-husband who paid her $500 to get out of their life. The police kept the glasses. She wears glasses all the time. Seven months later she went to
Walmart and got new glasses and submitted the bill for the glasses and the eye exam to be paid by the person she accused of
breaking her glasses. I consider her an opportunist.

If she was "practically homeless", that could just mean it took her seven months to be able to AFFORD an eye exam and new glasses. On that, I speak from personal experience. Several years back, I had glasses that were about 4 years old, with a broken temple (hinge broke, so I couldn't replace just a temple), and the prescription was out of date. I had no health insurance, and was living paycheck to paycheck, so it was near impossible for me to afford the eye exam I needed to get a new prescription, then another couple hundred dollars for the glasses themselves. I actually wore those classes for almost two years that way before I was able to afford to get my new ones.

And honestly, in the realm of things, just because she had a hard time with her marriage doesn't necessarily mean the glasses were that critically important to her.

While you may consider her an opportunist, unless you can PROVE that the glasses weren't broken in the assault, then you're probably going to need to cough up the cash to reimburse them for the damages.

 

[HighwayMan]

The "victim" who was right by a phone as well as her cell phone...

We don't even know what the alleged crime is. Was anyone arrested and/or charged?

 

[sandyclaus]

We don't even know what the alleged crime is. Was anyone arrested and/or charged?

Their posting Hx refers to an assault and battery, and whether that crime would be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. It seems to me that OP committed such an offense, and now the victim wants restitution for the broken glasses that they are claiming were damaged during the crime.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

unless you can PROVE that the glasses weren't broken in the assault, then you're probably going to need to cough up the cash to reimburse them for the damages.

That would impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

The burden is on the plaintiff (or prosecution) to prove that the defendant broke the glasses.

 

[mau99]

That would impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

The burden is on the plaintiff (or prosecution) to prove that the defendant broke the glasses.

THANK YOU STEVEF!!!

First of all, Sandyclaus, I am not the one accused. Second of all, if you, who has been on this
site since 2009, and have made over 5000 posts, dsn't know that the accused is not supposed to
prove ANYTHING, and the burden is on the plaintiff is very scary, because if you don't know that
by now, even though you are obviously interested in criminal law, then how many potential
jurors are there that are also clueless??

"
It seems to me that OP committed such an offense, and now the victim wants restitution for the broken glasses that they are claiming were damaged during the crime. " You already have someone tried and convicted, when you know nothing about the facts around the broken glasses..

"And honestly, in the realm of things, just because she had a hard time with her marriage doesn't necessarily mean the glasses were that critically important to her" The glasses have nothing to do with the marriage; don't even know how to respond to that; why the glasses were critically important to her, is because she can't see without them, and the police kept them.

 

[HighwayMan]

First of all, Sandyclaus, I am not the one accused...

So then stop being so ambiguous and relate the story as it actually happened.

 

[mau99]

So then stop being so ambiguous and relate the story as it actually happened.

Which part of the extremely long story would you like to hear, and for what reason? So that you can do what Sandyclaus does, try and convict people on here???. I came on here asking a question about a term and "Sandyclaus" goes off on tangents, claiming someone is guilty of something, when she
she knows nothing about the situation, and I am not asking anything about the situation.. And telling the WHOLE VERY LONG story would do nothing more than satisfy someone's curiosity, when I have very little time to work on figuring out how to help someone falsely accused, to show he was falsely acccused. and to bring out the truth.


Thank you anyways

 

[ecmst12]

Was the mystery person ever charged with a crime? If so, how did they plead?