Page 1 of 1

Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:06 pm
by MM_Dandy
Hallelujah!

Church to pay $2.9 million.

It ain't near enough, but I hope and pray that others follow suit.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:14 pm
by Lance
Hear! Hear!

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:36 pm
by Dragon Star
Sick sons of bitches. I'd shoot them with paint ball guns until they cried for forgiveness if they did that to any funeral I was at.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:48 pm
by The Beer Slayer
By their own logic, the verdict is God's will...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:04 am
by Blue Monster 65
Unfortunately, it's too bad the verdict didn't include allowing the families to beat them with rakes as well.

Woof! - Scott

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:06 am
by Dragon Star
Scott, don't forget the pitchforks... :twisted:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:53 am
by Heid the Ba
A question that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. I asked this repeatedly on BAUT but no-one ever answered:

Who get the punitive damages in a case like this?

And a follow up question: If the plaintiff, why?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:03 pm
by Lance
Heid the Ba' wrote:A question that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. I asked this repeatedly on BAUT but no-one ever answered:

Who get the punitive damages in a case like this?

And a follow up question: If the plaintiff, why?

I am just guessing, but I think the plaintiff would get the damages because they are the injured party.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:42 pm
by Heid the Ba
They get the compensatory damages (the $2,9 mill) that is fair enough; but why should they get the punitive damages? They have already been compensated. In this case the punitive damages are meaningless as the defendants don't have the assets but in tobacco cases where a company can be fined tens of millions in punitive damages why should that go to the plaintiff?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:09 pm
by Мастер
Heid the Ba' wrote:They get the compensatory damages (the $2,9 mill) that is fair enough; but why should they get the punitive damages? They have already been compensated. In this case the punitive damages are meaningless as the defendants don't have the assets but in tobacco cases where a company can be fined tens of millions in punitive damages why should that go to the plaintiff?


Is there something specific about this case and punitive damages, or is this a general comment on all cases with punitive damages?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:31 pm
by Lance
Heid the Ba' wrote:but why should they get the punitive damages?

Why not? Again, they were the injured party.

If the brakes on your car fail and you run a stop sign totaling my car, you owe me a car. It was an accident. You didn't mean it. Replace my car and we're all happy.

If you sneak up and intentionally light my car on fire, totally destroying it, not only do you owe me a car, you should be punished for the bad thing you did too. And why do I get the punitive damages in that case? Because you did it to me. You damaged more than just my car. You intentionally violated my space and my property.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:04 pm
by Heid the Ba
Lance: If punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant why should they go to the plaintiff. The compensatory damages are to re-instate them and are based on the actual harm caused. Violation of space and property, as in the Kansas Church case, are included in the compensatory damages.

Punitive damages seem to be based on the assets of the defendant and seem to be irrelevant to the actual harm. Why should a plaintiff be rewarded simply because the defendant is rich?

In your example the first instance is a civil matter, the second criminal. This may be due to different jurisdictions but I don't see how a civil case can be used to impose a sanction for a criminal act.

KOS: a general question, I know nothing about this case other than the link in the OP.

Edit to add: On reading about this decision, the jury have awarded the plaintiff US$8 mill that they know the defendant doesn't have, to punish the defendant, and to stop him doing it again. So (assuming this isn't overturned on appeal, or the award reduced) the defendant will be bankrupt. Doesn't that just remove any possible restraint on his behaviour since the defendant has been commiting no crime, and no further civil award can hurt him?

For simplicity I'm referring to the defendant as an individual since I don't know how the church structures it's finances. Either way the principle is the same.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:19 pm
by Lance
Heid the Ba' wrote:In your example the first instance is a civil matter, the second criminal.

Yes, but it doesn't matter. That the "state" prosecutes you for the criminal act doesn't stop me from suing you civilly.

Heid the Ba' wrote:This may be due to different jurisdictions but I don't see how a civil case can be used to impose a sanction for a criminal act.

Why not?

The "state" punishes you for the crime but doesn't reimburse the victim. That is left for the victim to do through civil channels. Do you remember the two O.J. trials?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:37 pm
by Bill_Thompson
I am sorry to say I exchanged emails with Fred Phelps before he was infamous.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:56 pm
by MM_Dandy
Good questions, Heid. As far as to whom punitive damages are awarded to, I'm not sure who else besides the plaintiff would qualify.

As far as the church filing bankruptcy...that could be quite interesting. I'm not sure why they didn't file before the trail started, since doing so would have stayed the trial. I'm also not sure that filing for bankruptcy would prevent them from being liable if they were to protest again while in bankruptcy. But, I'm not familiar at all with bankruptcy law and from what little I've read on the internet, non-profit bankruptcy proceedings are somewhat unexplored territory in our courts.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:42 pm
by KLA2
MM_Dandy wrote:Good questions, Heid. As far as to whom punitive damages are awarded to, I'm not sure who else besides the plaintiff would qualify.

As far as the church filing bankruptcy...that could be quite interesting. I'm not sure why they didn't file before the trail started, since doing so would have stayed the trial. I'm also not sure that filing for bankruptcy would prevent them from being liable if they were to protest again while in bankruptcy. But, I'm not familiar at all with bankruptcy law and from what little I've read on the internet, non-profit bankruptcy proceedings are somewhat unexplored territory in our courts.


The last thing they would want to do, I suspect. If they win, they win. If they lose, they become martyrs, and win.

Sucks, does it not?

Now they get not only the publicity that this generates, but the publicity from appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

Be nice if the individual members of the church were held financially responsible, but I bet not.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:50 pm
by The Beer Slayer
Look at it this way: time and money spent in defending themselves legally is time and money they won't be using to cruelly and pointlessly harass grieving families.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:34 am
by troubleagain
I'm curious, Heid, who you think should get the punitive damages if not the victim?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:39 am
by Enzo
If my memory serves, and it does so with increasing lack of frequency, did we not find at some point that Heid was (bom bom bom BAAA) an attorney?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:22 am
by Blue Monster 65
The people in that church are all ab-so-fucking-lutely-batshit-loony.

They'll never get what they deserve 'til they die and realize that they're dead and that's all, folks!

Grrrr ...

Woof! - Scott

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:36 am
by Heid the Ba
troubleagain wrote:I'm curious, Heid, who you think should get the punitive damages if not the victim?


I don't know. I just don't understand the logic of rewarding a plaintiff when the point of punitive damages is to punish the defendant. The plaintiff has already had his position restored by the compensatory damages, it would make as much sense to pay them to the state or to charity.

I also don't understand the logic of a jury assessing punitive damages they know the defendant can't pay. Once they had assessed compensatory damages of three times the assets anything else is meaningless. If to show outrage then why US$8 mill, why not US$100 mill or several billion? There is no punishment element here. Of course expecting logic from a jury is usually a fruitless exercise.

Lance: Good point, I'll have to think about that though I suspect it is down to a differing legal ethos.

Beer Slayer: I suspect both sides are having their legal fees funded by support groups and this will almost certainly go to appeal, even groups which don't like the church will back them in a 1st Amendment case. It won't be as funny as "Bong hits 4 Jesus" but it should get the Supreme Court tied up in semantics again.

Enzo, your memory does serve you well. Or at least adequately in this instance. I am a lawyer, but not one who does any court work.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:46 am
by Superluminal
One thing I'd like to ask the members of that church. Our soldiers have killed a lot more of the terrorists/insurgents/Islamofascists, or what ever you want to call them, than they have killed of our guys. If the bad guys had thier way, they would come here and kill every gay in the country. So therefore, why doesn't god guide their bullets and bombs to kill our guys by the 1,000's? Of course, I know what they'd say: God works in mysterious ways. :roll:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:27 am
by Enzo
You steal my bicycle. You get caught.

You have to buy me a new bicycle - compensatory damages.

You have to also pay me for having to deal with it, the time lost, the expense of pursuing the case, the loss of having the bike around when I wanted or needed it, the mental anguish, the loss of comfort living in my home with you as a neighbor, and whatever else about my life you damaged or took away - punitive damages.


You buy me a new bike - oh well, so I got whatever I could out of the bike, and wound up pating something for it - compensatory response.

You have to throw in $10,000 - Jesus Christ, see if I ever steal a bike again, this really sucks - punitive response.

And the American angle: Whatever is awarded at the trial will be reduced in appeal, so we ask for $100,000 so we will end up with $20,000 when all is said and done. Same as when you commit manslaughter and the prosecutor charges you with murder so he can plea bargain you down into the penalty for manslaughter without a trial. Or like a union that strikes for a $1 raise so they can collectively bargain down to the 30 cent raise they wanted in the first place.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:47 am
by umop ap!sdn
"It's enough already to bankrupt them and financially destroy them," Katz said.

*does happy dance* :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: