Justice in Balto.?

Home Forums Controversial Topics Justice in Balto.?

Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #603260
    Health
    Participant

    The conviction of one of the brothers has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Our civil rights that was given to us in the Constitution no longer exists if PC is in the way. PC can take away the concept of self-defense & put innocent people through convictions and possibly jail!

    #874514
    ANONANO
    Participant

    Based on the public facts of the story it is reasonable to assume that he was stepping overboard his call of being a shomrim member. there were numerous instances before the attack where he should have thought about what he was doing and have called the police. I’m not saying he’s guilty but he did cross the line and it wasn’t a miscarriage of justice. Shomrim is to assist the police , not to replace it. Does anyone know if he’s going to serve time in prison?

    #874515
    derszoger
    Member

    He’s rachmana ltzlan facing up to 10 years behind bars.

    #874516
    147
    Participant

    Baltimore is one of the most corrupt cities in America, but I won’t even mention some of the atrocities on YWN, as much as I would love to, to save other people from their own possible downfalls in the Maryland quagmire.

    But meanwhile, I would recommend that no-one gets involved in any patrol group. Between this case & the other episode in FL, let society find out the hard way, without being a guinea pig on a patrol organization, jeopardizing your own freedom & innocence.

    #874517
    Health
    Participant

    ANONANO -“Based on the public facts of the story it is reasonable to assume that he was stepping overboard his call of being a shomrim member. there were numerous instances before the attack where he should have thought about what he was doing and have called the police. I’m not saying he’s guilty but he did cross the line and it wasn’t a miscarriage of justice. Shomrim is to assist the police , not to replace it.”

    I wasn’t talking about his role as a member. Actually Shomrim threw him off. I was talking about being convicted of a crime. When you are defending yourself against being attacked this isn’t called assault. So yes, this is a miscarriage of Justice!

    If the so-called “victim” would have testified something else then you couldn’t blame the Judge. Judges are allowed to believe African -Americans over Jews. But if there is only one testimony -since when does the Judge have the right to find him guilty?

    Surely the Judge knows of the Constitution and the rights of e/o to defend themselves against attack?!?!

    #874518
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. One was acquitted.

    2. Due to denial of a jury trial and use of hearsay evidence, the appeal of the convictiom has a good chance.

    3. The kid who was convicted doesn’t seem all that innocent. He was seriously violating Shomrim’s policies. Note that when the Shomrim arrived, they appear to beieve the “victim” had been wrongfully attacked.

    #874519
    Health
    Participant

    akuperma -“3. The kid who was convicted doesn’t seem all that innocent. He was seriously violating Shomrim’s policies. Note that when the Shomrim arrived, they appear to beieve the “victim” had been wrongfully attacked.”

    You know good & well Shomrim’s policies have nothing to do with the Law. Their opinion is Not worth didley squat. They weren’t there during the incident anymore than me or you.

    Now let’s see – on one side there is testimony saying self-defense – on the other side there is mumbling & asking for the case to be dropped.

    Seems to any non-prejudiced observer that the Judgment would have to be Non-Guilty due to self-defense. Any other Judgment would not be based on any rules of law. This would be called a miscarriage of justice!

    #874520
    Health
    Participant

    147 -“But meanwhile, I would recommend that no-one gets involved in any patrol group. Between this case & the other episode in FL, let society find out the hard way, without being a guinea pig on a patrol organization, jeopardizing your own freedom & innocence.”

    I agree with this statement.

    “Baltimore is one of the most corrupt cities in America, but I won’t even mention some of the atrocities on YWN, as much as I would love to, to save other people from their own possible downfalls in the Maryland quagmire.”

    I don’t agree with this one. I’m quite familiar with the dirt that goes on, but your mistake is that it doesn’t occur elsewhere.

    It occurs in many places, but they have developed the technique of keeping it very quiet. Other towns & cities know how to sweep things under the carpet. So it’s a Maaleh in Balto. that some people aren’t totally sheep like I find in other communities.

    #874521

    Akuperma, They were not denied a jury trial. They elected to have a bench trial in the probably correct belief that a Baltimore jury would have thrown the book at them and a bench trial was their best chance of a fair hearing and aquittal. As a matter of procedure and law, a confrontation that leads to a fight is the fault of the one who initiated the confrontation. What the defendants should have done is stay in the car and radioed the police as was there approved procedure. Even if they were concerned about the woman pedestrian’s safety, The law did not permit them to intervene with force unless they witnessed an actual assuault.

    #874522
    Health
    Participant

    Raphael Kaufman -“As a matter of procedure and law, a confrontation that leads to a fight is the fault of the one who initiated the confrontation.”

    Are you that PC brainwashed that you don’t see the injustice here? This isn’t a bar room fight. His testimony clearly stated that he went back to the “victim” to TALK to him, not to disarm him. Upon approaching the “victim” – he came running towards him menacing the stick. You have no proof of the Shomrim guy ever even wanting a confrontation.

    Why must you defend this Judge? Because you think that in the Good Ole USA there isn’t any Gov. anti-semitism?

    Enough with your fancy-foot work talk -legal ease -this a classic case of Miscarriage of Justice.

    And even if the “victim” testified (which we know he didn’t say anything) that the guy’s intention was to disarm him and he never menaced anybody, but the guy knocked him down and hit him with the radio – I still say the Yid should have been found innocent.

    Why? Maybe the “victim” is telling the truth and not the Shomrim guy? Simple; because anybody who has an intention of disarming s/o doesn’t go out without a weapon. “Well maybe he didn’t have anything besides his radio?” Every car has a tire iron & esp. s/o trained in the Israeli army wouldn’t get out for a “confrontation” without a weapon. To say differently is just trying to fool e/o how this was a “Just” decision!

    #874523
    lesschumras
    Participant

    Why did the boys leave their car? That’s never supposed to happen and they wouldn’t be in this mess ( as neither would be Zimmerman ) if they had stayed in the car. I’m not saying the boys are guilty, but they put themselves into this situation

    #874524
    takahmamash
    Participant

    “Baltimore is one of the most corrupt cities in America”

    Based on what measurement? If it’s so corrupt, why do so many heimish families live there? Why has the community grown so much over the past years?

    “Seems to any non-prejudiced observer that the Judgment would have to be Non-Guilty due to self-defense. Any other Judgment would not be based on any rules of law. This would be called a miscarriage of justice!”

    Health, I thought you were a health professional. When did you graduate law school? Were you in the court room for the trial? Have you reviewed the transcript? Tell us some the actual rules of law you know that were used in this case, as well as those that were violated.

    #874525
    Health
    Participant

    takahmamash -“Health, I thought you were a health professional. When did you graduate law school?”

    I know this might be mind-boggling to you but I can have knowledge in more than one subject, even if I’m not a lawyer.

    “Were you in the court room for the trial? Have you reviewed the transcript?”

    Oh, the only way to know what was said was being there or reading the transcript? The media quotes for me posting my opinions isn’t good enough?

    “Tell us some the actual rules of law you know that were used in this case, as well as those that were violated.”

    Obviously you’re claiming to be some lawyer or legal expert, just FYI I don’t respond to demands. If you have any legal or logical reasons why you don’t agree with my posts -feel free to post them. If I disagree, I’ll tell you why. This isn’t a courtroom and you aren’t the Judge where they demand answers for any Naarish thing that pops in their head. And yes, I’ve been in Court many times.

    #874526
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Although the testimony of the victim was stricken from the record, the 911 call wasn’t. The judge had to make a facts call, what story makes more sense based on all the evidence. Although self defense is a justification, there is some shifting of the burden of proof, making the “innocent until proven guilty” less applicable. With all that in mind, there is nothing that I have read that comes close to showing that there was a miscarriage of justice (with no conclusive evidence to the contrary either). Therefore, a judge has more credibility to me.

    My question to you Health: If there was a Jewish kid walking in a black neighborhood, was approached by two intimidating folks in a car saying you don’t belong here or the like, then a few minutes later seeing those two folks approaching him, the kid picks up the nearest thing he finds, then gets beaten. How would you feel about a self-defense argument then?

    #874527
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“My question to you Health: If there was a Jewish kid walking in a black neighborhood, was approached by two intimidating folks in a car saying you don’t belong here or the like, then a few minutes later seeing those two folks approaching him, the kid picks up the nearest thing he finds, then gets beaten. How would you feel about a self-defense argument then?”

    Your question basically is -if the tables were turned in this case would I be prejudice for the Jew? So my assumption is – you think the case over here is where a guy picked up a stick to defend himself?

    Where did you get this notion from? You decided to make up a scenario to fit your PC agenda? The testimony of the Shomrim guy was the guy picked up the stick when him and his brother were back in the car. Only after seeing the guy walking around with it did they decide to go out and speak to him again. And there is no testimony from the “victim” saying this did not happen.

    You just can’t make up what happened here because of prejudice.

    The Irony here is that you are attacking one of your own -he is Not a Yeshiva guy -a more modern type. I have Ahavas Yisroel and despite him not being like me – I still stand up for him. Who do you stand up for – if not Frum Jews?

    #874528
    takahmamash
    Participant

    Obviously you’re claiming to be some lawyer or legal expert, just FYI I don’t respond to demands.

    I’m not claiming I am an expert – I’m claiming you’re not. Claiming knowledge about a legal case from reading media quotes is ridiculous.

    #874529

    Hi Health, I haven’t been around for a while but I see that you have remained consistant in your position. My statement was correct. the instigator of the confrontation is the one at fault. Whether or not the shomrim guy instigated a confrontation was a matter for the court to decide. The court apparently decided that he was, in fact the instigator. In any event, getting out of the car to “talk” to the “victim” was a bad idea. The Shomrim kid should have reported to the police and followed the “victim”. He would only be justified in taking further action if he witnessed an assault taking place.

    P.S. I do, in fact, believe that the kid was tried fairly and the anit-semitism that you and others on this blog perceive to exist in the U.S. is in your mind. That is not to say that there are no anti-semites in America. It’s just that institutional and social anti-semitism simply does not exist in the U.S. I know you believe otherwise, but you believe a lot of other things that I see differently. Biz 120, we’ll find out who was right. Mestammeh we’ll find that we were both wrong.

    #874530
    Health
    Participant

    takahmamash -“I’m not claiming I am an expert – I’m claiming you’re not.”

    I never claimed to be an expert in law. But I know enough to call a spade – a spade.

    “Claiming knowledge about a legal case from reading media quotes is ridiculous.”

    This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. I’m not filing a “brief” to the court, which I’ve done in the past, I’m commenting on a verdict. I have every right to base my comments on quotes from the “media”. I don’t have to assume these quotes are wrong. I’m still shaking my head from your post -I can’t for the life of me figure out where you are coming from!

    #874531
    americaisover
    Participant

    if they did not convict certain “minority” populations in Baltimore would riot and call in their “reverends”.

    #874532
    Health
    Participant

    Raphael Kaufman -“Hi Health, I haven’t been around for a while but I see that you have remained consistant in your position. My statement was correct. the instigator of the confrontation is the one at fault. Whether or not the shomrim guy instigated a confrontation was a matter for the court to decide. The court apparently decided that he was, in fact the instigator.”

    I understand the Court decided this, but my statement of “miscarriage of justice” was based on how she decided this. After reading the quotes in the media -I can’t find any reason besides her prejudice & desire to be PC. The only testimony she legally has – is the Shomrim guys’ and he said he had no intention for a fight or “confrontation”. The 911 call which was also included in evidence occured after the boys had left. This can’t possibly tell what occured at the time. What evidence does she have that the Shomrim guy is lying? I think NONE.

    Also, remember he testified that he only hit the kid after he charged him with the stick and he didn’t think he could out run him.

    “In any event, getting out of the car to “talk” to the “victim” was a bad idea. The Shomrim kid should have reported to the police and followed the “victim”. He would only be justified in taking further action if he witnessed an assault taking place.”

    Granted. But this isn’t illegal. And “Hindsight is always 20-20” or “Hindsight is always better than foresight.”

    “P.S. I do, in fact, believe that the kid was tried fairly and the anit-semitism that you and others on this blog perceive to exist in the U.S. is in your mind. That is not to say that there are no anti-semites in America. It’s just that institutional and social anti-semitism simply does not exist in the U.S. I know you believe otherwise, but you believe a lot of other things that I see differently. Biz 120, we’ll find out who was right. Mestammeh we’ll find that we were both wrong.”

    The reason you think that way is because you haven’t seen it. I was also asleep until I experienced it. I can’t even count how many jobs I was turned down because I wouldn’t work on Shabbos. When I sued in federal court – I kept making the point -what hardship, let alone minimal hardship existed why they legally didn’t have to accommodate me. They only proved that they needed Sat. employees, never why they couldn’t accommodate me. This question was ignored all the way to the Supreme Court. So systemic Anti-semitism has two options. One like in Europe where they did mistreat Jews financially and physically. And the other couvertly, like here, where they write laws protecting “Shabbos” observers in employment, but don’t enforce these laws in the whole federal court system.

    #874533
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Health – discriminating against a person who won’t work Saturday when one has a reason why having an employee who works on Saturday fills a need, has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Nothing. Why should the Government or an employer give you special treatment? What about the next person, who doesn’t want to work on Saturday b/c they just want off? Must they be hired too?

    As far as your attack on who has more ahavas yisroel for whatever sect, the irony is that your stereotyping of the sects is so hateful.

    There is a question of fact here as to what happened. The judge was supposed to be the fair and objective fact-finder. Having seen all the evidence, and having made CREDIBILITY calls, the Judge ruled on the facts. Nothing in the judge’s story is far-fetched. In the judge’s story, a beloved Jew did an understandable, yet illegal act, and now must face the consequences.

    Caring for someone does NOT mean that you believe they can never do something illegal. Does it?

    #874534
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“Health – discriminating against a person who won’t work Saturday when one has a reason why having an employee who works on Saturday fills a need, has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Nothing. Why should the Government or an employer give you special treatment? What about the next person, who doesn’t want to work on Saturday b/c they just want off? Must they be hired too?”

    Your argument holds no water because it’s a Federal law. They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship. I didn’t write the law, the Gov. did. The Antisemitism is that they didn’t uphold the law in the federal courts.

    “As far as your attack on who has more ahavas yisroel for whatever sect, the irony is that your stereotyping of the sects is so hateful.”

    Calling s/o MO is just differentiating between different types of Jews. Stereotyping has a different connotation. You hate this Shomrim guy obviously because you can’t see that this is a miscarriage of justice. Why do you hate him? Do you hate e/o besides yourself?

    “There is a question of fact here as to what happened.”

    Yes and there was testimony on the facts of the incident.

    “The judge was supposed to be the fair and objective fact-finder.”

    Key words -“was supposed to be”.

    “Having seen all the evidence, and having made CREDIBILITY calls, the Judge ruled on the facts. Nothing in the judge’s story is far-fetched. In the judge’s story, a beloved Jew did an understandable, yet illegal act, and now must face the consequences.”

    Yes, I understand this. But the question remains -where did this Judge get her evidence from? The only evidence presented in Court was a scenario of self-defense. She can’t just make up a different scenario for whatever reason. This is called a miscarriage of justice.

    “Caring for someone does NOT mean that you believe they can never do something illegal. Does it?”

    How do you know this person did something illegal? The evidence points to self-defense in spite of the Judge’s opinion. She obviously ruled the way she did because she believes in PC and not necessairly -“the truth and nothing but the truth”.

    #874535
    Th1
    Member

    I am not a member and don’t intend to remain. I sometimes have a bit of time between classes and will gaze over some threads. But, this thread went too far and, I felt I had to respond.

    1. People here are probably not residents of the baltimore community. This took place across the street from a giant dangerous public school next to two shuls. The students in this school are responsible for many episodes in the community. Just personally, two robbed my parent’s shed- two blocks from this incident. The cops came two days later despite the fact we called when they were in the shed. A few of these kids beet up my brother’s 12 year old friend on his way to my house- 15 min walk from the school. We did not call the cops until after shabbos because a rav said they won’t come. This was before the days of Shomrim. Shomrim are essential to our community. It’s not black and jewish neighborhoods here. They are all mixed.

    2. You don’t know this special family nor what this silly case has done to them. You have no idea of the pain it has caused. Don’t forget the “guilty” older brother was just recently married and may spend some time in jail leaving his new bride alone as he sits in a cell while he is in school full time.

    3. Primarily, so many are so quick to put another poster/member of klal yisroel down. I’ve seen it in so many threads which is why I refrain from posting along my spouse and children who keep me really busy. Why do people bash others? Does Health’s profession really invalidate him from feeling badly for these boys? Who cares is he isn’t a lawyer? Neither am I. But, I wouldn’t speak that way to another person because I would not appreciate someone speaking like that to me. As a rav in my community said in a shabbos drasha –when people love themselves, they are by definition kinder to others. And, my guess is he is an MD. MDs and PhDs are trained in a way that when they state a medical opinion, there is a recognition that people with certain backgrounds can pick up. RN, techs and medics are trained differently. It’s about how and not why to respond. And, I am not putting any profession down; they are all absolutley required in order to save lives!

    #874536
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Health the “Federal Law” you quoted is far from simple. It’d be different if you were discussing a gov. employer (a fact missing from your story).

    Th1 – I personally suspect that Health is a male nurse.

    I’m sorry that there were criminal incidents in Baltimore. I’m sure Shomrim do a great, essential job.

    The boys likely meant well. This isn’t the question. The question is whether they violated the law. Many stories were told in and out of court. The Judge was required to asses the credibility of all the evidence – including the 911 call – and decide what happened.

    I wasn’t there. Neither were you.

    I find the judge’s version of the facts to be the most likely one. Even if you disagree, surely there is no basis for stating that it’s “a miscarriage of justice” like Health did.

    Feeling badly for the boys, and blaming the judge, are two entirely different things.

    I hope that the boys have a happy and healthy life, and that nothing bad ever happens to them.

    #874537
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“Health the “Federal Law” you quoted is far from simple. It’d be different if you were discussing a gov. employer (a fact missing from your story).”

    The only one who is missing facts is you. I gave a very brief synopsis of the law. It’s seems you want to manipulate people by posting briefly without giving the whole facts. The Federal law does apply to all companies in the US as long as they have 15 or more employees. By stating or implying just the Gov. is totally inaccurate.

    “I wasn’t there. Neither were you.

    I find the judge’s version of the facts to be the most likely one. Even if you disagree, surely there is no basis for stating that it’s “a miscarriage of justice” like Health did.

    Feeling badly for the boys, and blaming the judge, are two entirely different things.”

    In your defense of the Judge you keep posting the same thing.

    She doesn’t believe the story of the Shomrim boy you keep saying, but you aren’t listening to what I’m saying. I asked this question and you haven’t given an answer – On what basis or testimony did she find the Shomrim party guilty? The only basis I can find is that the Shomrim’s testimony is a lie. Since there isn’t any other testimony besides the Shomrim guy, it surely can’t be based on any testimony that occurred during the trial.

    So this is why it’s a miscarriage of justice -why should the Judge be prejudiced against the Shomrim’s guy’s testimony? If I or any other honest guy were judging this case -I’d think that the fact that the “victim” refused to testify and his calling on the charges to be dropped – points that the Shomrim’s testimony is very credible.

    Why in your mind do you think that the Judge can’t be wrong no matter what?

    #874538
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Health – Your “synopsis” of the law – “They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship” – is wrong.

    The law is that may not discriminate based on religion. They discriminated based on you not working on Saturday (a day that they needed employees to work on). Likely, the case was dismissed. Correctly.

    The only thing you could possibly contend is that they really aren’t hiring you because you’re an orthodox jew, and the fact that they blamed it on Saturday is a lie as proven by the fact that they could have somehow accommodated you as an exception.

    Such a contention is obviously silly and wrong. It’s a pain to make exceptions, and likely would get the other employees rightfully upset. No one wants to work on Saturday.

    As far as credibility calls, the finder of fact (in this case the judge – by choice of the defendant) is obligated, repeat obligated, to make judgment calls like I buy this or I don’t buy that, or I’m not sure etc., based on the evidence presented. The Judge’s job is to apply the facts to the existing legal standards.

    Implicit in this obligation is to read expressions, context, and demeanor of all the witnesses and testimony, and to consider all the evidence.

    The facts seemingly not in dispute (that the defendant was the initiator of the altercation, justified or not) shift some of the burden of proof on the on the defendant here.

    Was there a legit case of self-defense? Legally, the one who concededly assaults another must prove this. Did they sufficiently? I doubt it. The Judge decided not.

    After all this, you came along and made your own decision about the Judge’s motive. The burden of proof of this extreme statement is on you, just like the burden of proving justification is on the instigator. You have not come close.

    #874539
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“Health – Your “synopsis” of the law – “They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship” – is wrong.

    The law is that may not discriminate based on religion. They discriminated based on you not working on Saturday (a day that they needed employees to work on). Likely, the case was dismissed. Correctly.

    The only thing you could possibly contend is that they really aren’t hiring you because you’re an orthodox jew, and the fact that they blamed it on Saturday is a lie as proven by the fact that they could have somehow accommodated you as an exception.

    Such a contention is obviously silly and wrong. It’s a pain to make exceptions, and likely would get the other employees rightfully upset. No one wants to work on Saturday.”

    Sorry, you talk like s/o who learnt some law or is a lawyer, but you’re totally Incompetent. I’m not going into it with you, but this much I’ll say the law is multi-faceted. Yes, you can have discrimination based on your religion and “I don’t hire such type of people from your religion”, but part of the law is you must accommodate religious beliefs unless there is a minimal hardship to do so. To make it easier on yourself -instead of looking at the law directly -just look at the US Supreme case of Harrison vs. TWA and you’ll see that what I posted is correct.

    “As far as credibility calls, the finder of fact (in this case the judge – by choice of the defendant) is obligated, repeat obligated, to make judgment calls like I buy this or I don’t buy that, or I’m not sure etc., based on the evidence presented. The Judge’s job is to apply the facts to the existing legal standards.

    Implicit in this obligation is to read expressions, context, and demeanor of all the witnesses and testimony, and to consider all the evidence.

    The facts seemingly not in dispute (that the defendant was the initiator of the altercation, justified or not) shift some of the burden of proof on the on the defendant here.

    Was there a legit case of self-defense? Legally, the one who concededly assaults another must prove this. Did they sufficiently? I doubt it. The Judge decided not.

    After all this, you came along and made your own decision about the Judge’s motive. The burden of proof of this extreme statement is on you, just like the burden of proving justification is on the instigator. You have not come close.”

    After all your long-winded paragraph with fancy terms you basically say the Judge didn’t believe the guy on the fact that it was self-defense.

    I’ll talk in plain English that even e/o here will understand. This defense of the Judge would be fair enough, if not for one small fact. The fact is – that how does the Judge know there was an assault? Oh, that’s right the Shomrim guy testified there was. There is no other evidence or testimony saying there was one. This would be a miscarriage of justice because why should the Judge believe him on the assault part and not on the self-defense part? Splitting his words like that can only mean Prejudice.

    I’m begining to wonder if the reason you keep posting your Naarishkeit is to see how many people you can fool. I hope most people can see through your posts.

    The funniest thing is you once had an argument with me whether YU or Touro gives a better education -if you are represenative of YU – Touro wins hands down. Obviously YU teaches how to have command of the English language, but they have fallen short of what Law and Justice is truly about and that is – The Truth!

    Does this last statement sound alien/foreign to you?

    #874540
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    I told you a different time and I’ll tell you again I never went to YU. I’m not MO.

    The controlling case here is Stuart v QD inc…Hardison (I’m giving you the befit of the doubt and assuming that’s what you meant) actually hurts your case. (I was vague on purpose here.)

    I will concede to you that the accommodation doctrine is more extensive than I initially thought constitutional. And that my previous statement of the law is misleading.

    The concept of burden of proof is crucial. If you don’t get it, what does that say about Touro?

    No one has ever questioned WHETHER there was an assault, rather if the assault was justified. (There was a kid that went to the hospital you know)

    In such a case, the assumption (as it should be) is that assaults are illegal UNLESS you can PROVE otherwise. Is my English simple enough?

    Nothing here is black and white, and I wouldn’t be surprised

    There’s (at least) one question you didn’t answer me: How do you KNOW that NOTHING could have given the judge the conclusion she reached other than political pressure etc.?

    #874541
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“The controlling case here is Stuart v QD inc..”

    Never heard of it. What is it?

    “The concept of burden of proof is crucial. If you don’t get it, what does that say about Touro?”

    I never learnt law in Touro or anywhere else for that matter. I taught myself.

    “No one has ever questioned WHETHER there was an assault, rather if the assault was justified. (There was a kid that went to the hospital you know)”

    Acc. to law who said there was an assault? Going to the hospital because he banged himself with a stick -there was no assault. What he told 911 & the responding cops is only hearsay. He must testify in a Court of Law. But you know this, but you want to manipulate the readers here.

    “There’s (at least) one question you didn’t answer me: How do you KNOW that NOTHING could have given the judge the conclusion she reached other than political pressure etc.?”

    Well I’m not a mind reader so I don’t know exactly what the Judge’s decision is based on, but from observation of what occurred during the trial -I can only come to the conclusion that she split the testimony of the Shomrim guy. Now why would she do this?

    Again for the tenth time, she has no legal reason to say there was an assault by THIS Shomrim guy (even if you want to say there had to be some sort of assault) without the testimony of the Shomrim guy. Why split the Shomrim’s guy’s testimony if she wasn’t Prejudice?

    #874542
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Have you ever heard of hodoas ball din? That applies in secular court. Migu – not as much. It’s really a credibility question. The 911 call is not hearsay as A) it was emotions at the time of the incident, and B) there was no better source as the victim refused to testify.

    Laws of evidence and hearsay are complicated.

    Since you asked for it, this is the case I was referring to.

    Aron v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., CIV.A.03-2581 JSH, 2005 WL 1541060 (D.N.J. June 30, 2005) aff’d sub nom. Aron v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 174 F. App’x 82 (3d Cir. 2006)

    #874543
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“The 911 call is not hearsay as A) it was emotions at the time of the incident, and B) there was no better source as the victim refused to testify.

    Laws of evidence and hearsay are complicated.”

    I’m not a lawyer so I can’t argue this point with you. But one thing I will say the fact that he refused to testify and called for dismissal of the charges is more evidence – (that the Shomrim’s guy’s testimony is accurate) – than any 911 call. So how come she didn’t find his testimony credible if not for her Prejudice?

    “Since you asked for it, this is the case I was referring to.

    Aron v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., CIV.A.03-2581 JSH, 2005 WL 1541060 (D.N.J. June 30, 2005) aff’d sub nom. Aron v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 174 F. App’x 82 (3d Cir. 2006)”

    So what about it? And you said Stuart, not Aron.

    #874544
    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    I originally disguised the name of the case in case it was you. Look it up. Some eery similarities to your story. Coincidence it must be… Anyway, we’re going in circles. Here’s a hypo: the kid was bought off (or the like), and the Shomrim were (correctly) trying to cover it up. My money’s there personally. Obviously yours isn’t. It’s not hilchos eidus, its whether self-defense was proved by sufficient evidence, so as to justify the undisputed act of violence that all sides and all witnesses concur on. The prosecution represents the state not the kid.

    #874545
    Health
    Participant

    frumnotyeshivish -“I originally disguised the name of the case in case it was you. Look it up. Some eery similarities to your story. Coincidence it must be… Anyway, we’re going in circles.”

    So you’re trying to guess my identity? I think that’s against the rules of the CR. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I know the guy and I used him as an example to make a point? Maybe you shouldn’t post people’s cases without their permission -that’s why I didn’t mention the case specifically. So what is your point regarding that case?

    “Here’s a hypo: the kid was bought off (or the like), and the Shomrim were (correctly) trying to cover it up. My money’s there personally. Obviously yours isn’t. It’s not hilchos eidus, its whether self-defense was proved by sufficient evidence, so as to justify the undisputed act of violence that all sides and all witnesses concur on. The prosecution represents the state not the kid.”

    Your theory holds no water because the Grandparents control the kid and are suing the parties involved. They are the ones s/o would pay off, not the kid. They could easily have told the kid not to testify and he would listen. But what happenned was he tried to lie because his Grandparents told him to, but on the stand he just couldn’t pull it off. So anything pointing to that this Shomrim guy was the guy doing the assault comes from the Shomrim’s guy’s testimony. So why did the Judge only believe half his testimony, esp. in light of the fact that the “victim” didn’t testify and his conscience asked for a dismissal?

Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.