Any Law Experts? Bill Cosby Settle Out OF Court and Still Got Charged?

[GGG Gloveking]

answer the question and

..all equitable codes of jurisprudence are founded upon Biblical teachings and principles, and indeed should conform to them

Do you have a comment or question related to criminal law vs civil law, or do you just want to go off on a tangent the way you normally do?

We are discussing the law. The law calls for separation of church and state, therefore we will not discuss religious texts in the context of this discussion. You may feel free to make a thread about the relationship between religious texts and legal code if that is the conversation you want to have. But please, keep this conversation limited to American law and how it relates to Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson

[maracho]

Do you have a comment or question related to criminal law vs civil law, or do you just want to go off on a tangent the way you normally do?

We are discussing the law. The law calls for separation of church and state, therefore we will not discuss religious texts in the context of this discussion. You may feel free to make a thread about the relationship between religious texts and legal code if that is the conversation you want to have. But please, keep this conversation limited to American law and how it relates to Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson

That's your confederate fiscal conservatism talking. This country's constitution was based upon Christian principles and your ilk continually mistranslate what is meant by separation, which simply meant not to give governing power to any church. Our founding fathers never meant to forego Biblical principals and law or prayer and Christian inspiration as you now insist.

Anyway it flew right over your head but my point was that your Condeferate principles were never Biblical and siablo14 typically doesnt believe Christian defendants and only defends Atheists, Satanists and the like

[siablo14]

No. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought without mitigation, justification or excuse.
Thus in a murder case some level of malicious intent is required for a murder conviction.

In the civil case he is liable for an act resulting in wrongful death.
Malicious intent is not required. One can be liable for the death of another if one acted intentionally or negligently.

But in basic terms one is saying he killed them and one is saying he didn't, right?

That's how I am looking at.

That's just crazy that two different courts have different outcomes so which one do you point to as getting it right?

[siablo14]

The criminal case of course. He was found innocent by 12 people who saw all the evidence presented and heard all the arguments and witness first hand all of the witnesses demeanor and reactions.

That said no one can hundred percent be certain because none of us including the jurors were there. That’s why the standard is beyond “reasonable “ doubt not “all” doubt.

I see.

It strange that there is a court using less stringent measures that is able to take away someone's livelihood with strong evidence.

[GGG Gloveking]

That's your confederate fiscal conservatism talking. This country's constitution was based upon Christian principles and your ilk continually mistranslate what is meant by separation, which simply meant not to give governing power to any church. Our founding fathers never meant to forego Biblical principals and law or prayer and Christian inspiration as you now insist.

Anyway it flew right over your head but my point was that your Condeferate principles were never Biblical and siablo14 typically doesnt believe Christian defendants and only defends Atheists, Satanists and the like

Do you think of you say the word confederate enough times that you'll anger me? Seems to be your goal

[maracho]

The burden of proof is much lower in civil court. In criminal court, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil it's just a preponderance of the evidence. That simply means more likely than not, basically 51% of the evidence

Not sure what you mean

In Pennsylvania criminal cases, a unanimous jury is required to find the defendant guilty. In civil cases, 5/6 of the jurors must be in agreemen

in California civil matters a jury can render a verdict if 3/4ths of the jurors agree but in both felony and misdemeanor criminal cases, the jury must be unanimous

[Don Pichardo]

But in basic terms one is saying he killed them and one is saying he didn't, right?

That's how I am looking at.

That's just crazy that two different courts have different outcomes so which one do you point to as getting it right?

Actually no. In the criminal case it just means that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it necessarily, just that there wasn’t enough to prove it.

In the civil case there was enough evidence to
Prove it because the evidence standard is lower, “more likely than not” that he did rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So much easier to prove in a civil case.

[Don Pichardo]

I see.

It strange that there is a court using less stringent measures that is able to take away someone's livelihood with strong evidence.

Yes much easier to take ones money than liberty. Thank the US Constitution.

[siablo14]

Actually no. In the criminal case it just means that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it necessarily, just that there wasn’t enough to prove it.

In the civil case there was enough evidence to
Prove it because the evidence standard is lower, “more likely than not” that he did rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So much easier to prove in a civil case.

I know, man. It's just odd that it was set up like that.

And both criminal and civil law has been around for the same number of years or did one come after the other?

[GGG Gloveking]

Not sure what you mean

In Pennsylvania criminal cases, a unanimous jury is required to find the defendant guilty. In civil cases, 5/6 of the jurors must be in agreemen

in California civil matters a jury can render a verdict if 3/4ths of the jurors agree but in both felony and misdemeanor criminal cases, the jury must be unanimous

In your first example, you talk about a criminal court when I'm talking civil court. In your second one, you talk about a percentage of the jurors, rather than the evidence. It's called a preponderance of the evidence. It basically means a more likely than not.