And in this corner, weighing in at............you two are way out of hand.


Better to burn out than fade away. '04 G35c, 5at, Prem, Sport, Punk Tunes "TEMPTID"

 

I wouldn't say 'way' out of hand but just 'out of hand.' Sorry about that. raz's next action is clear and appropriate imo. ckwick is saying he shouldn't threaten criminal action. I just want to know what his proposed alternative is.

 

"i think that is the reason why judges/courts want more than one estimate--i.e. to lessen the chance that the reported damages have been fluffed up. but of course, the judge has to take into his/her account basic common sense and reasonable damages. "

It's not hard to get an inflated estimate written. In fact most body shops will write on the high side anyways. The place where it is easiest is in the labor rates. It is also the easiest to spot there but unless an appraiser, who knows what the going labor rate is, is involved most people will never know. It's also easy to hide overlap items in an estimate as they are repairs that are included with a repair that is already on the estimate but you may not know it unless you have access or have knowledge about the specific estimate repair guide they are using to write the estimate with. Computer estimating systems are less prone to this, but I have still seen shops manipulate numbers. And these are for walk-in customers that got estimates before they came to us. But really, all I was saying is that there is no set standard by any means. A judge will consider your actual repair bill without any other estimates.

"either way, i think most ppl here support raznips and agree that he was wronged and need to be compensated. you, on the other hand, appear to just want to pick apart ppl's statements like you're the expert. however, all you appear to do is ramble on and on: )~"

I never said he wasn't wronged or that he shouldn't be paid for his damages. I just disagreed with the methodology. Well rambling is involves a lot of non-cohesive thought. My posts are lengthy as I added my reasoning as to why. I'm basically backing up my statements. So how is that rambling? Are you prepared to back up your statement?

 

"While I agree with your definition of extortion, I don't think it's quite applicable in this case. My idea of extortion is when someone says "give me $5000 or I'll tell your wife about your mistress." The extortionist has not been damaged in any way and is solely looking for monetary gain.

In this situation, raz has suffered a real pecuniary loss. While the value of the wheel might be in question, he's wants to be in the same position he was before the incident happened. This to me is totally different than the situation above."

So is it okay then to hold a gun to his son's head as long as he's only getting his money back? Where is the line drawn? Last time I checked blackmail is illegal...

------------------------------------------------------------


"Besides the argument that it is not hearsay, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule that would allow the report in. The report may be introduced to 'refresh the memory' (in which case, anything can be used) of the police officer.

Abbreviated version:
Counsel: Officer Smith, what happened on the 4th of January 2004?
Officer: That was a few months ago but I think I investigated a report of grand theft auto.
Counsel: you think, huh? Is there anything that would refresh your memory?
Officer: I remember filling out a police report as I always do per standard procedure.
Counsel: is this the report?

ETC. ETC.

The report will be inspected by defense and after it is authenticated, it will become an exhibit. "

Yes, but the reason it's admitted is because the officer is testifying. But the officer can only testify to that which he actually witnessed. If he was not there when it happened and he tries to account for what someone else told him, it is hearsay. If he says this person told me "xy and z" he is a witness to the statement.

----------------------------------------------------------


"Irrelevant. There was a duty and it was breached. It was foreseeable and but for the punk stealing the car, it would not have been damaged. All the stuff about no damage or mileage and speculation is irrelevant. "

How is it irrelevant? There must be damage. Just because an accident occurred and someone is at fault, does it mean that the "victim" can now automatically sue for injuries? Absolutely not. There must be an actual injury. Otherwise that is considered fraud. Explain your point. Back it up.

---------------------------------------------------------

"I'm a little confused with this one. Pressing charges against the kid because he stole a car and deserves punishment is OK but since the parents aren't cooperating, blame them and not punish the kid? Punishing the kid for the father's lack of cooperation is just mean? I don't get it."

If Raznip and/or the state feels the kid should be punished then it should be done solely on that purpose alone. Not because his parent's won't pay money. If Raznip feels the kid shouldn't be punished then he should stick with that.

As far as punishing the kid for what the father is doing consider that the kid has no control over what his parents do. So what is happening is that the kid would be getting punished not for stealing a car, but because his father won't pay money. There's a rather distinct difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you recommending that raz press criminal charges and then press civil charges? If not, what are you trying to say? It seems as though he has tried to settle this matter as easily for the parties as possible. You say that threatening criminal charges is wrong (If you don't agree with my definition of extortion, I suggest we agree to disagree.) but what else would you have him do? Going through the criminal process and then a civil one is going to hurt all of the parties involved whether it will be in terms or atty's fees, time, effort, mental anguish/fatigue/stress, etc.

We know your position on the threat but we (at least me) don't know what you would have him do instead. If your solution is better than the above, help raz out. "

I'm not saying to press criminal charges or not. If the kid should be charged then press charges. If not, then don't. Leave that at that.

If he cannot recover the damages directly then take legal action in a civil suit. Is it that difficult to understand. And keep in mind this wil likely be a small claims matter. Attorneys don't have much say directly, though you are allowed to have counsel there with you. But the judge will be parties involved the questions. The attorney won't be speaking on your behalf. In either case, if the case is strong enough to be successfully prosecuted in a crimnal court, you'll likely have an easy time proving the offense in a civil court. Then it just comes down to proving causation and damages.

I won't deny the potential effectiveness of holding the charges over their heads, but I am arguing against the morality of it.

 

"I'm basically backing up my statements. So how is that rambling? Are you prepared to back up your statement?"

first of all, you appear to be rambling because you have gotten away from the main points that we have made in order to help/advise a fellow member. instead, you pinpoint an insignificant statement and try to argue against it like anyone cares -- for example, your response to my statements about judges wanting several estimates. you respond by bringing up labor rates!!!!

as stated before, we hope the best for raznips -- that is the main point. you, however, are a "mr. know-it-all" or a cliff clavin trying to look intelligent.

 

The reason I brought up labor rates was as an axample as to how an estimate can easily be "fluffed" as you called it. It was a direct response to your argument. How is that rambling?

So pointing out that you think something a person is doing is wrong is not helping? Making a good decision is about weighing the good and the bad. As I said before it is raznip's decision to make. Whether he agrees with me, disgarees, doesn't care, whatever, it is his decision. But there is nothing wrong with hearing several perspectives.

And it's not like anyone forced you to respond to me. But you did because your opinion differs from mine and you felt you needed to respond. And there is nothing wrong with that. But does that mean I can not respond back? And if you disagree why not argue the facts instead of making personal attacks? Calling my posts rants and calling me a Mr. Know-it-all isn't proving anything. A good argument will speak for itself. Name calling and insults are what you do to win arguments in grade school. I'll stick to the facts, thanks.

 

Z2G,

"easy killer" [img]/w3timages/icons/wink.gif[/img]. CKwik is arguing his side, you're allowed to disagree with him, but just some free/friendly advice, NEVER argue with a lawyer. It's like arguing with your wife. You'll never win and it will take the damn Supreme Court to decide things for you... then he will appeal and start arguing about the arguement... [img]/w3timages/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Raz- Please call the police and press criminal charges. You have an obligation to society to report violations of the law. Allow your father and his lawyers to take matters from there. We're all (I think "all") behind you here. [img]/w3timages/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Good Luck and let us know what you decide to do. This must be what a soap opera is like.

 

You're still here?

2003 6MT Laser Red Coupe, Premium, Chrome 18's, JWT Pop Charger, Z Tube- back in action

 

Oh how I wish I was a moderator on this one.


Better to burn out than fade away. '04 G35c, 5at, Prem, Sport, Punk Tunes "TEMPTID"

 

Quote:
"Yes, but the reason it's admitted is because the officer is testifying. But the officer can only testify to that which he actually witnessed. If he was not there when it happened and he tries to account for what someone else told him, it is hearsay. If he says this person told me "xy and z" he is a witness to the statement."
_________________________________________
Again, there are many ways to get hearsay statements in. Besides the argument that it is not hearsay (an out of court statement made by a person offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted), at all, the rules of evidence offer a laundry list of exceptions. If you want to get something in, you should be able to.

Quote:
"How is it irrelevant? There must be damage. Just because an accident occurred and someone is at fault, does it mean that the "victim" can now automatically sue for injuries? Absolutely not. There must be an actual injury. Otherwise that is considered fraud. Explain your point. Back it up."
__________________________
It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the facts given. There was injury and damage. Thanks for telling us that it is required unless someone want to commit fraud but you have to remember the facts. If someone takes a dog in for a checkup and the dog is doing fine, do you think anyone would want to know what new treatments or medicine is available for worms? Is this enough back-up?

Quote:
"If he cannot recover the damages directly then take legal action in a civil suit."
________________________________________
What if the judge asks raz if he called the police and raz says no? What would your response be?

Judge: You're alleging that the defendant stole your car and damaged it, aren't you?
Raz: yes, your honor.
Judge: if that's the case, why didn't you call the police and report this crime?

Quote:
"I won't deny the potential effectiveness of holding the charges over their heads, but I am arguing against the morality of it."
________________________________
From the facts that are given, raz has given the kid and his father a generous offer to make all of this go away.

Based on the above, I think one could make the argument that if raz threatens to press criminal charges and this in turn makes them pay for the damages, it would be more moral than pressing criminal charges that will affect the kids life for at least 10 years (until he can get it expunged from his record). Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been found guilty of a crime?

 

lol....it's all good. it's just a friendly discussion. i was just teasing ckwik--all friendly banter. because it's a forum, it may be hard to interpret a poster's actual intent since it's all in written form.

but knowing now that he's a lawyer, i better keep quiet: )~

 

"Again, there are many ways to get hearsay statements in. Besides the argument that it is not hearsay (an out of court statement made by a person offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted), at all, the rules of evidence offer a laundry list of exceptions. If you want to get something in, you should be able to."

Certainly there are always ways to get evidence heard. But then it becomes an issue of credibility. For example, a witness is asked what he saw is going to hold much more credibility than an officer who testifies to what a witness said.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the facts given. There was injury and damage. Thanks for telling us that it is required unless someone want to commit fraud but you have to remember the facts. If someone takes a dog in for a checkup and the dog is doing fine, do you think anyone would want to know what new treatments or medicine is available for worms? Is this enough back-up? "

This actually started from the discussion about police reports and their weight in court. I was merely pointing out that there must be measurable damage. It was not a statement to say there was no damage in this specific case. A curbed wheel is certainly quantifiable. Perhaps added mileage, used gas. Wear and tear may be difficult to prove beyond normal mileage. Not only would he have to prove the car was driven hard, but that doing so actually caused damage or excess wear and tear. And then he would have to prove the actual extent. Unless you have someone pull the engine apart and look for signs of wear and tear. Then consider it's still only an educated opinion at best. It could be easily questioned that damage could have existed prior to the incident. This is getting a bit complicated with what will likely be a small claims case, but it certainly has some value to look at at this kind of level prior to going to trial. I'm not sure what you were getting at with the example about the dog.

----------------------------------------------

"What if the judge asks raz if he called the police and raz says no? What would your response be?

Judge: You're alleging that the defendant stole your car and damaged it, aren't you?
Raz: yes, your honor.
Judge: if that's the case, why didn't you call the police and report this crime? "

My response would be the truth. Raz gave the kid a break, felt he could settle the issue and it didn't work out. Seems resonable to me. And keep in mind that not having a criminal conviction does not mean teh civil case can not be won. In fact, for the most part the same evidence will be shown. OJ simpson's trial is a perfect example of this. Coby's trial may end up with a similar outcome too. It's certainly not enough to deter the girl or her attorneys.

----------------------------------------------------

"From the facts that are given, raz has given the kid and his father a generous offer to make all of this go away.

Based on the above, I think one could make the argument that if raz threatens to press criminal charges and this in turn makes them pay for the damages, it would be more moral than pressing criminal charges that will affect the kids life for at least 10 years (until he can get it expunged from his record). Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been found guilty of a crime? "

But you're now under the pretense that you must file the criminal charges to have a chance in a civil case. This is simply just not the case. Nor would filing criminal charges have a great effect on the civil case. And it's not like raz was talking about filing because he felt he had to in order to have a chance at winning a civil case. He specifically stated that the kid and his parents are not in a position to negotiate. My arguments relate specifically to using the threat of criminal charges as leverage.

 

"lol....it's all good. it's just a friendly discussion. i was just teasing ckwik--all friendly banter. because it's a forum, it may be hard to interpret a poster's actual intent since it's all in written form.

but knowing now that he's a lawyer, i better keep quiet: )~"

I am a lawyer? When did this happen? And why doesn't my salary reflect it? Ha. Actually, I am an insurance adjuster. I do argue with plenty of attorneys though.

 

perhaps I'm just not being clear or relaying my position in an understandable manner. If this is the case, my apologies. Regardless, my position/arguments don't seem to have any effect. How did you get "But you're now under the pretense that you must file the criminal charges to have a chance in a civil case." from my last paragraph? I'm telling raz to pursue a course of action that will probably help eliminate the need for any kind of court involvement either criminal or civil.

I feel like I'm banging on a drum that has no more noise to give so I propose we agree to disagree. If you are an attorney, I would invite you to consult with your colleagues and former classmates and ask them if they feel the threat of criminal prosecution to be recoup his damages is moral or not. I would wager that most, if not all of them would agree with me.