MeNoSay

The level to which some people are missing the point is truly amazing.

The bottom line is this:

Public statements about an event can be used as evidence in judicial proceedings related to the event.

Because most people are not lawyers -- and because when events like this happen to people, they tend to think emotionally -- many do not fully understand the implications of seemingly innocuous statements.

Therefore, it is wise to consult with someone who does understand those implications before making a public statement.

That was, I believe, the OP's point. It remains a good point and good advice. I don't think anyone here would disagree with it, despite the schlong-measuring contests.

AINITFUNNY

Although EVERY WORD that the original poster posted is TRUE and very wise advice on a personal level, IT IS ALSO THE VERY MEANS BY WHICH TYRANNY THRIVES.

PREVENTING THE OPPRESSED FROM UNITING AGAINST THEIR OPPRESSORS IS THE ONE ABSOLUTELY PRIMARY, CRITICAL REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVATION OF TYRANNY.

As long as EACH citizen must face the overwhelming power of government ALONE, his oppression unknown to other citizens, there is no outrage, oppression or abuse that cannot be committed against him(and EVERY CITIZEN, IN TURN) with impugnity nowdays.

AC110

Quite so, but winning the criminal case, at least in the Simpson case, probably instigated the civil case, so it was a pretty hard win. If I recall the Goldman's seemed to have sued Simpson as an alternative form of justice when they were displeased by the criminal victory. The Blake case may have been much the same thing.

GUWonder

Winning or losing a criminal case, a civil case may well still happen -- and likely would have happened anyway. (People routinely go for the money when it comes to higher profile individuals deemed to have had a sizeable pot of assets.) That is, I don't follow your line of thinking on this matter at all.

GeneralAviation

In the O.J. Simpson criminal case, the jury had to find Simpson guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt." In the civil case, the jurors had to make a decision based on a "preponderance of the evidence." In other words,
the bar was set higher for the criminal case.

Another factor: the criminal case was tried in downtown L.A., and
the civil case was tried in Santa Monica by a mostly white jury.

The Goldman family didn't sue Simpson for money....they sued for justice
and, in the end, they received very little of either.

AC110

Hey, I'm not trying to pick a fight!

The post to which I was responding suggested that it is easier to win a criminal case than a civil one.

The Simpson case was the first time I recall that an acquittal in a criminal case was followed by a civil case apparently intended to right a perceived wrongful acquittal.

My point was simply that the not guilty verdict in the criminal trial seemed a hollow victory in light of what followed.

GUWonder

The proof standard in a criminal case vis-a-vis the proof standard in a civil case in the US is such that in theory it ought to be easier for a defendant to win the criminal case than it is for a defendnat to win the civil case. That is, a previous poster was correct to suggest that it is easier -- at least in theory -- to win a criminal case than a civil one.

On the second matter of "hollow victory" evidenced by the situation of winning the criminal trial but losing the civil case, I count staying out of prison a pretty substantial victory -- even if it means financially having to rebuild or endure a standard of living below that previously accustomed.

Maybe it's different in Canada than in the US, but that's basically how I understand it to work in the US.

Landing Gear

I have read everything you wrote here and consider this very sound advice.

I have been practicing law for more than 20 years.

sethb

Anybody who thinks anonymity on the Internet is easy doesn't understand how the Internet works.

You have anonymity until someone who knows more than you (both technically and people) wants to break it. Then you don't.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you buy someone from your ISP's abuse department (or network engineering department) a couple of drinks and find out.

HeathrowGuy

A bump, as the advice within this thread is priceless.

stupidhead

If they arrest you, remain silent, demand an attorney. If they fail to read you your miranda rights, don't tell them. Say nothing, and if they ask you any questions, demand the presence of a lawyer. FAILURE TO READ YOU YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL OF EVEN THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES. If you are represented by counsel, and the DA comes to you directly for any reason, that's prosecutorial misconduct. Make sure to tell the judge. This might get a directed verdict in your favor.

Landing Gear

"FAILURE TO READ YOU YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL OF EVEN THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES."

At the minimum, this statement is seriously misleading.

The failure of police to advise a suspect of his rights to remain silent, to an attorney (free if necessary) and that anything said will be used against him can result only in the exclusion of those statements made, if any.

Plenty of defendants have been convicted on evidence completely independent of confessions.

If you are not an attorney familiar with the specific law in question, dispensing legal opinions on this board does a great disservice to your fellow Flyertalkers.

stupidhead

Further, NEVER waive ANY of your rights, ever. The prosecutor wants to put you away for the longest time possible, regardless of your guilt. Make their jobs as hard as possible. It's called "adversarial" system for a reason; it's because the prosecutor hates you only because you're the defendant.

Remember, in criminal cases:
Reasonable doubt, even the slightest shadow of it=NOT GUILTY. BY LAW.

In civil cases:
Preponderance of evidence (whoever has the most evidence)=win.

If you're arrested, say nothing. The only thing you should EVER say is: "I want an attorney" until they give you one. The minute you get an attorney, everything you say (to your attorney) is privileged, and they can't talk to you without your lawyer's presence.

mmartin4600

Just curious. Where did you receive your law degree? How long have you been practicing?

stupidhead

I didn't go to law school, and I'm not a practicing attorney. Yet. That said, I nevertheless know quite a bit about the law. Are you disputing the fact that you should assert all rights that you're afforded? You're entitled to counsel. Get a lawyer. Case closed. Unless the facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the prosecutor offers some kind of deal, you should be his adversary.

As far as I know, prosecutors couldn't care less if you're guilty, they only care about putting you in jail regardless of your guilt. That's what I'm going to assume if I ever have to deal with one.