The alpha-Male...

[GarMan]

At some point, I believe this would have been relevant to the discussion.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home 

Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me.  Good for her!   

There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed... 

This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about.  While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows.  The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder.  The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions.  Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court.  This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack.  Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down.  Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window.  The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work.  Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him. 

Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place.  The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road.  I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988.  If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name.  I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there. 

I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law".  How could an attorney ever take something like this? 

[Jumbo]

At some point, I believe this would have been relevant to the discussion.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home

I hope she used hollow points

[Saniflush]

Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me.  Good for her!   

There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed... 

This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about.  While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows.  The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder.  The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions.  Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court.  This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack.  Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down.  Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window.  The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work.  Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him. 

Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place.  The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road.  I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988.  If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name.  I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there. 

I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law".  How could an attorney ever take something like this? 

No need to Snope it.  I will attest to this.

[Snaggletiger]

Was there an attorney involved? I'm asking seriously because many times people will file it themselves without an attorney.  I would venture a guess in saying probably 3/4 or more of the small claims (Up to $3K) suits involve no attorney as you get the paperwork from the courthouse, plunk down $40-$50 bucks and then walk in front of a Judge to talk about the case.

If there was in fact a lawyer representing this guy and he brought the case knowing those facts...then yes, he/she is a dirtbag and has no business practicing law.

[GarMan]

Was there an attorney involved? I'm asking seriously because many times people will file it themselves without an attorney.  I would venture a guess in saying probably 3/4 or more of the small claims (Up to $3K) suits involve no attorney as you get the paperwork from the courthouse, plunk down $40-$50 bucks and then walk in front of a Judge to talk about the case.

If there was in fact a lawyer representing this guy and he brought the case knowing those facts...then yes, he/she is a dirtbag and has no business practicing law.

Of course...  And, I agree with you.  Perhaps, if we disbarred some of these dirtbag attorneys for representing some of these cases, we'd see reductions along the lines of a "loser pays" system. 

[JR4AU]

Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me.  Good for her!   

There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed... 

This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about.  While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows.  The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder.  The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions.  Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court.  This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack.  Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down.  Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window.  The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work.  Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him. 

Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place.  The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road.  I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988.  If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name.  I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there. 

I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law".  How could an attorney ever take something like this? 

Y'all need to keep in mind a couple of thing.  You can sue anybody, for anything.  Whether it has merit and makes it to court is a whole other matter.  As it turns out, in your friends case, the right thing happened.  I'll say this again.  Yes, even some lawyers will get involved in that kind of shit.  Few of these types of lawyers make it long in the profession as they can't ever get a favorable decison out of a judge, and thus can't do their clients any good.  Moreover, they're generally known not only by their legal collegues, but the community in general, and can't manage a good living being a complete dirtbag.  Those of you that take the exceptions and try to make them the rule won't believe it, but the legal profession does a pretty good job of policing it's own.  Again, not perfect, but we all want to make a living, and don't want to be associated with the shit in our profession.

[JR4AU]

Of course...  And, I agree with you.  Perhaps, if we disbarred some of these dirtbag attorneys for representing some of these cases, we'd see reductions along the lines of a "loser pays" system. 

An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.   

The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks.  A good case isn't a cod lock winner.   

[CCTAU]

An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.   

The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks.  A good case isn't a cod lock winner.   

Is your real name Reggie Love. Because you sound like Reggie Love.

"What's the Cloak and Dagger all about Reggie, you know you can trust us? "

[Snaggletiger]

Here's what is at the root of the problem in my opinion.  I may be off base here but I truly believe that much of the blame for the crap you see with regard to frivolous or baseless lawsuits has to lay at the door of the Bar Associations and their lack of regulation for the number of lawyers in our system.  I say that knowing that I'm just as much a part of that problem as everyone else.  Twice a year, I look at the "Alabama Lawyer" publication and see the smiling faces of a 1000 or so more lawyers who just got sworn in.  My ugly mug was standing in the very same spot years ago.

The number of attorneys in this State...hell, America..is staggering.  The competition out there is overwhelming.  You have attorneys coming into the practice now averaging over $100K in debt and being a guppy in the Pacific Ocean. (Hold the shark references  ) Many lawyers nowadays are faced with taking on more crap than they normally would just to keep the lights on.  I talked to a friend of mine last week who finally threw in the towel because he simply can't make a living any more.  Just too many of us out there and he's not willing to compromise his principles to make a buck.    

[JR4AU]

Here's what is at the root of the problem in my opinion.  I may be off base here but I truly believe that much of the blame for the crap you see with regard to frivolous or baseless lawsuits has to lay at the door of the Bar Associations and their lack of regulation for the number of lawyers in our system.  I say that knowing that I'm just as much a part of that problem as everyone else.  Twice a year, I look at the "Alabama Lawyer" publication and see the smiling faces of a 1000 or so more lawyers who just got sworn in.  My ugly mug was standing in the very same spot years ago.

The number of attorneys in this State...hell, America..is staggering.  The competition out there is overwhelming.  You have attorneys coming into the practice now averaging over $100K in debt and being a guppy in the Pacific Ocean. (Hold the shark references  ) Many lawyers nowadays are faced with taking on more crap than they normally would just to keep the lights on.  I talked to a friend of mine last week who finally threw in the towel because he simply can't make a living any more.  Just too many of us out there and he's not willing to compromise his principles to make a buck.    

Yep, I have been considering going back in to private practice, but for the first time in anyone's memory, bad economic times are not prosperous times for attorneys as they have been in the past.  I've known a few to throw in the towel and move on to other jobs/professions.

[GarMan]

Y'all need to keep in mind a couple of thing.  You can sue anybody, for anything.  Whether it has merit and makes it to court is a whole other matter.  As it turns out, in your friends case, the right thing happened.  I'll say this again.  Yes, even some lawyers will get involved in that kind of poop.  Few of these types of lawyers make it long in the profession as they can't ever get a favorable decison out of a judge, and thus can't do their clients any good.  Moreover, they're generally known not only by their legal collegues, but the community in general, and can't manage a good living being a complete dirtbag.  Those of you that take the exceptions and try to make them the rule won't believe it, but the legal profession does a pretty good job of policing it's own.  Again, not perfect, but we all want to make a living, and don't want to be associated with the poop in our profession.

While this might be another exception, the frequency still seems pretty amazing.  You have to wonder how many of these sleazy cases are offered a settlement before ever getting tossed out. 

An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.   

This case had no merit. 

The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks.  A good case isn't a cod lock winner.   

I don't see any slope.  If the case has merit, the potential plaintiff should have enough confidence to take on the risk before going through with with the suit.  I know that's a change from the "norms" in your industry, but we don't build cars if there's a risk they won't run or implement systems if there's a risk they won't function.  And, God knows the surge the legal industry would have if we started operating that way.  It should be the same thing here. 

[JR4AU]

While this might be another exception, the frequency still seems pretty amazing.  You have to wonder how many of these sleazy cases are offered a settlement before ever getting tossed out. 

This case had no merit. 

I don't see any slope.  If the case has merit, the potential plaintiff should have enough confidence to take on the risk before going through with with the suit.  I know that's a change from the "norms" in your industry, but we don't build cars if there's a risk they won't run or implement systems if there's a risk they won't function.  And, God knows the surge the legal industry would have if we started operating that way.  It should be the same thing here. 

The "frequency" is pretty low.

I didn't say the case had any merit.

Big differnce in being able to test your systems before hand.  Like a football team that is better on paper, they don't always win when expected to.  You analogies are not well grounded.  Your background and education have you applying very black and white standards to a system that is anything but. 

[GarMan]

Big differnce in being able to test your systems before hand.  Like a football team that is better on paper, they don't always win when expected to.  You analogies are not well grounded.  Your background and education have you applying very black and white standards to a system that is anything but. 

 
Testing isn't cheap or easy...  In fact, half the cost and schedule of my current project is tied up in testing. 

Ever hear of focus groups?  Reason?  Common sense?  Not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying... 

[wesfau2]

 
Testing isn't cheap or easy...  In fact, half the cost and schedule of my current project is tied up in testing. 

Ever hear of focus groups?  Reason?  Common sense?  Not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying... 

Judges, juries and other human components in the system can do wacky things to your case.

I've seen great cases lose and weak cases win...and on another day the results in each instance might have turned out differently.

There is no valid comparison to be made between lawsuits and machines vis a vis "testing".

[JR4AU]

Judges, juries and other human components in the system can do wacky things to your case.

I've seen great cases lose and weak cases win...and on another day the results in each instance might have turned out differently.

There is no valid comparison to be made between lawsuits and machines vis a vis "testing".

Ditto, and like I said, an Engineer/IT guy is applying very black and white standards to a very gray system.  Apples and oranges.

[Token]

Another incident from yesterday that is somewhat relevant to the discussion.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519823/1017/NEWS?Title=Two-attorneys-arrested-jailed

EDIT--  After actually reading what was being discussed.  I was wrong.  This isn't relevant at all.  Carry on.

[GarMan]

Ditto, and like I said, an Engineer/IT guy is applying very black and white standards to a very gray system.  Apples and oranges. 

I'm not disagreeing with you guys.  I'm just saying that more should be done to test the validity of some of these cases before they are even filed.  Perhaps, the attorneys need to take some personal responsibility before pushing forward with some of these cases.  I think Harv was onto something by assigning some responsibility to the Bar Associations and the lack of regulation. 

[JR4AU]

I'm not disagreeing with you guys.  I'm just saying that more should be done to test the validity of some of these cases before they are even filed.  Perhaps, the attorneys need to take some personal responsibility before pushing forward with some of these cases.  I think Harv was onto something by assigning some responsibility to the Bar Associations and the lack of regulation. 

Here's an example though.  I recently lost a robbery prosecution.  Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well.  The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office.  The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them.  After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face.  He ran off after robbing him.  Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court .  The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge.  The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY!  About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video.  Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?

[Token]

Here's an example though.  I recently lost a robbery prosecution.  Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well.  The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office.  The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them.  After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face.  He ran off after robbing him.  Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court .  The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge.  The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY!  About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video.  Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?

And for those of you who have never sat through a Voir dire....Jesus.  I've seen some of the dumbest people on earth in the few that I've been involved with.  Those people give me a headache, and all I have to do is listen to them.

[GarMan]

Here's an example though.  I recently lost a robbery prosecution.  Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well.  The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office.  The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them.  After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face.  He ran off after robbing him.  Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court .  The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge.  The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY!  About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video.  Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict? 

I didn't think we were talking about criminal cases.  The most obvious differences being presumption of innosence and beyond a reasonable doubt.  The standards are different, as you know.