• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Battery Without Assault?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

bamakertracer

Junior Member
Yes. I am from Michigan. But there is no wall that has prevented me from entering other states, including those in the South, and there is nothing that has prevented me from learning the laws of other states.

Because you seem quite clueless when it comes to the law, I recommend you (or whoever is involved in the civil action) seek out legal assistance in your area. Let the attorney speak for you because if you open your mouth, I fear your case is doomed.
This forum is a joke. Not one respondent here has presented any legal basis for your statements. None.

You obviously do not know the south. I have seen horrendous assault cases dismissed because the victim "provoked" the incident with nothing more than insulting words or gestures; where, that has zero legal basis anywhere in the law.

I have seen similar civil suits deem provocative words as contributory negligence, thereby freeing the defendant of any liability. Southern juries see things differently. It just is the way it is. So it is common to try to prevent exposure to such points of prejudice.

In fact, the point of presenting it here, is that the motion denial seems to be prejudice by the judge, allowing irrelevant evidence and testimony to be presented that has nothing to do with the battery that occurred.

Your entire logic implies that the events that led up to the battery, excuse the act of stomping on the head of an unconscious helpless person.

It seems you have the same bias as the judge and jury you say I am being insulting toward. You simply don't like the notion that the guy who started the confrontation will get paid. You bias is clear. You think Marty got what he deserved.

Once and for all, explain, with legal basis and citation, why the battery of stomping on an unconscious mans head, would be relevant at all. Joe had the ability and choice not to harm Marty, and yet he chose to do so. That result could occur, no matter how it started.

So if you have any credibility at all, present a proper response and argument.

Thereby making the basis for the motion all the more valid.
 


justalayman

Senior Member
We are willing to help those who come to this forum with legitimate questions. We are less willing to help those with unrealistic or unreasonable expectations about the merits of their cases.
I’m telling ya Quincy. It’s a student. Why else would anybody be so upset nobody has provided citations;


Not one case citation or legal citation of any kind to support what you are saying.
I suspect his instructor has told him he’s full of bs. He thinks he’s right and figured somebody would provide citable sources. I’m betting instructor is getting tired of waiting so op is getting more desperate.


Maybe op could provide citations for his position.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I’m telling ya Quincy. It’s a student. Why else would anybody be so upset nobody has provided citations;




I suspect his instructor has told him he’s full of bs. He thinks he’s right and figured somebody would provide citable sources. I’m betting instructor is getting tired of waiting so op is getting more desperate.


Maybe op could provide citations for his position.
I always am amused by those who come to this forum thinking that insulting the members will get them the answers they are looking for. :)
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
This forum is a joke. Not one respondent here has presented any legal basis for your statements. None.

You obviously do not know the south. I have seen horrendous assault cases dismissed because the victim "provoked" the incident with nothing more than insulting words or gestures; where, that has zero legal basis anywhere in the law.

I have seen similar civil suits deem provocative words as contributory negligence, thereby freeing the defendant of any liability. Southern juries see things differently. It just is the way it is. So it is common to try to prevent exposure to such points of prejudice.

In fact, the point of presenting it here, is that the motion denial seems to be prejudice by the judge, allowing irrelevant evidence and testimony to be presented that has nothing to do with the battery that occurred.

Your entire logic implies that the events that led up to the battery, excuse the act of stomping on the head of an unconscious helpless person.

It seems you have the same bias as the judge and jury you say I am being insulting toward. You simply don't like the notion that the guy who started the confrontation will get paid. You bias is clear. You think Marty got what he deserved.

Once and for all, explain, with legal basis and citation, why the battery of stomping on an unconscious mans head, would be relevant at all. Joe had the ability and choice not to harm Marty, and yet he chose to do so. That result could occur, no matter how it started.

So if you have any credibility at all, present a proper response and argument.

Thereby making the basis for the motion all the more valid.
You posted a question about an action in civil court.

The point of a civil action is to determine $, not "guilt". How the whole situation came to be is relevant in determining what, if any, financial culpability the defendant has.

Additionally, when a party chooses to go it pro se, as Marty has, the party is likely to do things that do not follow court procedure. While some of this might be forgiven by an understanding judge, ultimately pro se litigants have an up hill battle if the other side is represented by competent legal counsel.

Even if Marty has a legal point, if Marty doesn't know how he is to express that point, Marty will ultimately get trounced.

Shall we assume that no competent lawyer wanted to take on this case on a contingency basis?
 
Last edited:

bamakertracer

Junior Member
You posted a question about an action in civil court.

The point of a civil action is to determine $, not "guilt". How the whole situation came to be is relevant in determining what, if any, financial culpability the defendant has.

Additionally, when a party chooses to go it pro se, as Marty has, the party is likely to do things that do not follow court procedure. While some of this might be forgiven by an understanding judge, ultimately pro se litigants have an up hill battle if the other side is represented by competent legal counsel.

Even if Marty has a legal point, if Marty doesn't know how he is to express that point, Marty will ultimately get trounced.

Shall we assume that no competent lawyer wanted to take on this case on a contingency basis?
Obviously. The point of a civil action is damages, not guilt.

And Yes, if you are replying, your opinion is not relevant, without supporting your position.

Isn't that the point of a help forum?

You fellas just seem to like being contrary and nothing more, especially by reading your other replies.

Why is it so seemingly important to you to deduce my involvement or interest in this case? You all seem to like to make some very big and incorrect assumptions.

Why can you not simply answer the questions and support your answer?

At the very least, explain how the prior events are relevant, when the outcome could have been the same. Moreover however, any prior assault or conflict had ended. Where there is no threat, there is an obligation to cease. The defendant made a conscious decision to harm, beyond the confines of the conflict.

In fact, in criminal law, in many states, this act would be charged as attempted murder. And yet, here you fellas are implying that the events leading up to the battery are relevant. The only way they can be relevant, would be to provide a release of liability or justification of use of force.

Please explain what, of prior acts to the battery, would be relevant - and give the legal basis for that.

As I was told, this is a help forum. You might try being helpful. You know...just a thought.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Ya see mr bama,

We don’t need to support anything. You can agree, disagree, throw a tantrum, or anything else but the bottom line is; we are not obligated to support anything we don’t want to. If you don’t want to believe everybody that has said you’re wrong, thats fine


Bottom line; Marty got shut down and rightfully so. If you disagree, then YOU provide support for your position.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Obviously. The point of a civil action is damages, not guilt.

And Yes, if you are replying, your opinion is not relevant, without supporting your position.

Isn't that the point of a help forum?

You fellas just seem to like being contrary and nothing more, especially by reading your other replies.

Why is it so seemingly important to you to deduce my involvement or interest in this case? You all seem to like to make some very big and incorrect assumptions.

Why can you not simply answer the questions and support your answer?

At the very least, explain how the prior events are relevant, when the outcome could have been the same. Moreover however, any prior assault or conflict had ended. Where there is no threat, there is an obligation to cease. The defendant made a conscious decision to harm, beyond the confines of the conflict.

In fact, in criminal law, in many states, this act would be charged as attempted murder. And yet, here you fellas are implying that the events leading up to the battery are relevant. The only way they can be relevant, would be to provide a release of liability or justification of use of force.

Please explain what, of prior acts to the battery, would be relevant - and give the legal basis for that.

As I was told, this is a help forum. You might try being helpful. You know...just a thought.
There was no battery.

If the one kicked in the head is seeking damages (e.g., to recover medical expenses, whatever), he should have an attorney assist him.

Have charges been filed? If so, the one wanting to sue might want to see what happens in the criminal case.

I think you need to learn some manners. If you want someone to help you, being nice and polite is the best way to get the help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top