Sutherland Springs Shooting

[ShAArk92]

The verse following the Beatitudes

Deez ... did I state the verse? I identified Matthew 5 ... since we're gonna parse ... the end of The Beatitudes is verse 11. Go past 12 ... start reading at 21 to the end of the chapter. Specifically 25 ...

I'm not one to point only to one verse, either. But I also know Christ said more in one verse than I'd ever say on my own in an eternity. So, it's not "cherry picking," It's "consuming" The Word.

Avoid legal proceedings ... like I said. I respect the fact you earn a living/earned a living in the legal profession as a certificated attorney. This isn't an attack on your profession, it's been around as long as the "oldest profession." But the teaching is sound and the fact our society has disregarded it in SO many applications and we've given ourselves not only to legal process, but to man's derived law ... is serving to be our own destruction ... because we place our faith in man and not in God.

So ... I don't know the status of this suit, but it's disappointing. VYFan addressed the issue with successfully suing the government. I think I did, too.

Anyhow ... all the best!

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez ... did I state the verse? I identified Matthew 5 ... since we're gonna parse ... the end of The Beatitudes is verse 11. Go past 12 ... start reading at 21 to the end of the chapter. Specifically 25 ...

I'm not one to point only to one verse, either. But I also know Christ said more in one verse than I'd ever say on my own in an eternity. So, it's not "cherry picking," It's "consuming" The Word.

Avoid legal proceedings ... like I said. I respect the fact you earn a living/earned a living in the legal profession as a certificated attorney. This isn't an attack on your profession, it's been around as long as the "oldest profession." But the teaching is sound and the fact our society has disregarded it in SO many applications and we've given ourselves not only to legal process, but to man's derived law ... is serving to be our own destruction ... because we place our faith in man and not in God.

So ... I don't know the status of this suit, but it's disappointing. VYFan addressed the issue with successfully suing the government. I think I did, too.

Anyhow ... all the best!

"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." Matthew 5:25-26

This sounds much more like an indictment of those who don't pay what they owe to people than those who sue.

The problem with your logic is that you're equating suing somebody with not putting your faith in God's judgment or wisdom. Again, you can't reconcile that position with scriptures that clearly support litigation, and that's the real fallacy in your argument. There's no more basis for that than there is avoiding going to the doctor rather than relying only on God to heal or relying on God to safely fly an airliner rather than putting a trained pilot at the controls.

Like an airline pilot or a doctor, a lawyer or the court system in general can be an instrument of God's will. Before each trial, I didn't pray for victory. I prayed that I would do a good job, that justice would be done according to God's will, and that I would accept justice with a good attitude if I lost and be a gracious winner if I won.

And keep in mind that the very basis of our court system comes from the Bible. We got the idea of having a court system from God. We didn't make it up. He did.

 

[ShAArk92]

Perhaps you're right, Deez ... in fact, I know you're right WRT God's work in mysterious ways and sometimes (often?) even through man's rebellion against Him.

I don't believe that means we need to "do His work for Him" and intentionally place ourselves in that predicament.

I think we can certainly find agreement of frivolous lawsuits ... and the hypersensitivity to "sue" in order to settle a dispute.

Again, I believe the ideal that the Air Force CAUSED this is just sadly ludicrous ... will this family seek pain/suffering/damages like the woman who spilled coffee in her lap??? We're going to blame the Air Force for failure to feed a system whereby less than 1% of all checks result in sentencing?

I suppose OTOH ... if the AF WOULD have filed the paperwork, NICS's actionable success rate may actually have (doubled) in this case!

 

[ShAArk92]

... and yes ... the BASIS of our court system is derived from Jewish law.

Need we hold court on how well our court system has held to that ability to adjudicate properly? Kate Steinle ... as the most recent example.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't believe that means we need to "do His work for Him" and intentionally place ourselves in that predicament.

We cannot and are not doing His work for him. All we can do is the best we can and pray for God's guidance and direction. Believe it or not, most trial judges and jurors aren't trying to play God any more than a brain surgeon is trying to play God. They're just trying to do the right thing and follow their duties.

I think we can certainly find agreement of frivolous lawsuits ... and the hypersensitivity to "sue" in order to settle a dispute.

We can agree, but we probably won't agree about the significance of it. The "frivolous lawsuit" mantra is largely myth. First, the law has mechanisms to quickly dispose of a truly frivolous lawsuit and with severe penalties against the person filing it and his lawyer. Second, nobody is less likely to file a frivolous case than an individual is because of the contingent fee agreement. Even if I had no ethics at all, I'd never file a frivolous case, because I'd never risk my time or front the expenses associated with the case on what's most likely to be a fruitless endeavor. Finally, the idea of individuals being sue-happy is also a myth. We actually sue less than we used to, especially in tort/injury litigation.

Again, I believe the ideal that the Air Force CAUSED this is just sadly ludicrous ... will this family seek pain/suffering/damages like the woman who spilled coffee in her lap??? We're going to blame the Air Force for failure to feed a system whereby less than 1% of all checks result in sentencing?

Let me get into the coffee case a little. Everybody whines, "coffee is supposed to be hot" and immediately says the case was garbage. Suppose you took a sleeping pill, but instead of helping you fall asleep that night, it kept you asleep for a month. It's supposed to make you sleepy, but it's not supposed to make you that sleepy. Well, coffee is supposed to be hot, but it's not supposed to be hot enough to cause third-degree burns. That (coupled with the fact that they knew the coffee was burning people in large numbers) is why McDonald's lost that case.

I don't think we're going to agree on the Air Force's culpability here. They didn't fire the gun, but they enabled the guy who did by screwing up. Are they going to end up paying all of this family's damages? No, and they shouldn't. But would a court be crazy to put 5 percent responsibility on them? No. And by the way, the surest way to make somebody stop screwing up is to make them face accountability when they do.

... and yes ... the BASIS of our court system is derived from Jewish law.

Need we hold court on how well our court system has held to that ability to adjudicate properly? Kate Steinle ... as the most recent example.

It's an imperfect system, because it's run by human beings. Judges make mistakes. Juries make mistakes. However, there are checks and balances on both. Judges can get overturned on appeal. Jury verdicts get vacated and/or reduced. (That happened in the coffee case. The plaintiff didn't get the $2.8 million that was awarded to her. The trial judge reduced the total judgment to about 1/4 that amount, and the parties entered into a post-judgment settlement for a confidential sum (rumored to be a little less than $600K). Considering that she was willing to settle for $20K (which McDonald's rejected), she surely considered it a major victory, but it was a hell of a lot less than the jury ordered.)

The alternative is a system with fewer checks and balances (unaccountable trial judges and no appeals) or no system (might makes right). I'll take our system.

 

[ShAArk92]

We cannot and are not doing His work for him.

that's a figure of speech. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Usually when I get impatient, I tend to "do His work for Him." What I'm suggesting is an overuse of the legal system is likewise "doing His work for Him." ... and by definition, getting it fouled-up. (of course, given the time it takes to adjudicate these acts ... well ... my metaphor fails there. What's the phrase; swift? Guess that's relative.

It's an imperfect system, because it's run by human beings.

with this I completely agree.

I'll take our system.

compared to what happens in other countries? Sure ... but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved. You mentioned "fruitfulness" ... that sounds a lot like "how much can I earn from it."

I don't see where "loser pays" would do anything but hold to account those in the system who'd bring these suits in the first place.

The coffee suit/McDonalds ... OK ... you've efficiently recounted the issue and I can even understand that a real deterrent is going to be a large value for any given person ... millions for suffering a 3rd degree burn? Perhaps ... cover the medical and lost time at work ... then the disincentive for such a product is assessed and awarded to local charity projects or something. The draw of a large award shouldn't be be the enticement ... just get back to where you were in a case where you were actually and legitimately harmed.

And stop looking to government for provision. It has a legitimate function and providing for personal defense isn't in that function.

Thanks.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What I'm suggesting is an overuse of the legal system is likewise "doing His work for Him." ... and by definition, getting it fouled-up.

Who's overusing it, and what does that mean?

You mentioned "fruitfulness" ... that sounds a lot like "how much can I earn from it."

Well, yes. I'm not going to invest money in a case if I have little or no expectation of getting it back.

I don't see where "loser pays" would do anything but hold to account those in the system who'd bring these suits in the first place.

I'm open to loser pays, but the problem I've seen is that when I see it proposed, it's always one-sided. The insurance lobby would never favor a true loser pays system, because they know that for every case in which the plaintiff had to pay out, they would have to pay out literally hundreds of times.

millions for suffering a 3rd degree burn?

She didn't get millions.

then the disincentive for such a product is assessed and awarded to local charity projects or something. The draw of a large award shouldn't be be the enticement ... just get back to where you were in a case where you were actually and legitimately harmed.

I wouldn't mind a portion of punitive damage awards going to charity (not all because then no one would seek them), but there's no basis not to let the injured person have his or her compensatory damages.

And stop looking to government for provision. It has a legitimate function and providing for personal defense isn't in that function.

Do keep in mind that the court system is constitutionally ordained. It actually has more right to exist than the military. Congress has the power to establish a military, but nobody has an affirmative right for the military to exist. Congress has the right to create a court system, but in addition to that, individuals have an affirmative constitutional right to have access to it. In other words, though Congress can restrict its size, it cannot get rid of it. In other words, it's a function of government that is supposed to exist and is supposed to be used.

 

[ShAArk92]

Who's overusing it, and what does that mean?

Nearly everyone ... which is the reason I'm given for the duration of actually getting a case completed. I asked above ... Swift? That's not just a trucking company, right?

You may think this is crazy, but I think the decades of "anti-bullying" campaigns have contributed to this. We've taught our kids, now/soon to be citizens, to run to a civilian authority to arbitrate disputes for virtually anything. Don't take responsibility for your own, you must let government decide.

Well, yes. I'm not going to invest money in a case if I have little or no expectation of getting it back.

not only "worth your time," but how much above/beyond. I think you know what I meant.

The insurance lobby would never favor a true loser pays system,

You're probably right ... and that stems from, again, "must have someone else tend to your responsibility."

She didn't get millions.

OK ... I saw that. My error. But the judgement was still for millions. I don't think McDonalds everywhere was doing this or there'd have been a LOT more examples ... hence hundred thousand against that ... restaurant? ... or the ones actually committing the negligence.

Do keep in mind that the court system is constitutionally ordained.

I'm reminded of it every time the 9th circuit renders a decision. I don't have a philosophical problem with it (the court nor its constitutional existence) ... but the contemporary practice is certainly not the purpose. One of the funniest things I've seen on the interwebs this holiday season was a meem about the traditional "pardon of the turkey" and that the 9th circuit was to vacate the pardon. Why was it funny? because it was SOOOO true.

Anyhow. The courts have been used to legislate and that's a foul ... from both sides of the "aisle." Will the judicial system fix it ... or will it require a Constitutional Amendment of some sort? There doesn't seem to be many, particularly in that area, who will work to reduce their importance.

"redirecting," sadly my own little congregation has accepted uniformed LEOs posted as centurions ... not simply as "parishioners" who'll be pulling their "ox out of the ditch" very soon after the scheduled service. That saddens me ... not that I have any ill will toward those who made this decision and certainly not to the uniforms ... but the basis of it driven by emotion and the recognition the threat will remain and we'll eventually return to the "blue" alert condition. Probably some "buttress my/our importance" happening in this venue, too.