You libs probably love this shit.

This story makes absolutely no sense to me from a legal standpoint.

Not to defend some piece of scum already in jail on an unrelated sexual assault charge but, first of all, tell me how a lawyer is able to go after punitive damages relating to a crime (setting an 8 year old boy on fire) for which this particular defendant was never even charged by the police, let alone found guilty in a court of law.

The lawyer in this matter told the jury he wanted to "make a statement by topping the $145 billion Florida verdict against the tobacco companies." Huh? What statement? How would punitive damages awarded against Big Tabacco have any correlation at all to a crime of setting someone ablaze and for which injuries the victim died 8 years later.

Talk about a stretch comparison.

There have to be more facts to this story. If not, then anyone can sue another person in a court of law for punitive damages relating to some crime they never committed.

# Tabacco = Tobacco

Texas.
'Nuff said.

first of all, tell me how a lawyer is able to go after punitive damages relating to a crime (setting an 8 year old boy on fire) for which this particular defendant was never even charged by the police, let alone found guilty in a court of law.

Ask OJ.

It sounds like the lawyer saying that was full of shit. IDK.

If its true then even more amazing would be there being enough people on a jury dumb enough to go along with shit and then even a judge who didn't throw out the case to begin with (no crime means its fucking bullshit).

#2 | Posted by CalifChris

I think he just wanted a name for himself.

Just goes to show you how skewed the justice system is.

Lets go after a guy who wasn't even charged for the crime, who's already serving a sentence for an unrelated crime, and get a judgement against him in civil court for an amount that not only cant be paid, but wasn't expected to be paid, just so he could top the amount that big T had to pay.

It's moronic..

"You libs probably love this shit.
#1 | Posted by glasshouse "

Because La Grange is overwhelmingly liberal?

Glasshouse, the great defender of child burners.

There used to be a famous whore house in La Grange.

#9 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2011-12-22 09:18 AM

The great defender of lawyers and bullshit lawsuits.

The great defender of lawyers and bullshit lawsuits.

#11 | Posted by glasshouse at 2011-12-22 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:Currently suing his mother for wrongful birth.

#2
The statute of limitations ran out before the State of
Texas could prosecute the case. The eight year old
victim was unable to verbalize what happened
to him. He was severely burned.

12 years later, after multiple surgeries and intense
physical therapy, the victim was able to make a statement
prior to his death, that provided enough evidence for his
survivors to proceed with a wrongful death claim against
the defendant.

That statement and other evidence convinced the jury
that the defendant was ultimately responsible for the
victims death.

That is a unreal judgement anyway you can't get blood out of a turnip!

"The statute of limitations ran out before the State of Texas could prosecute the case"

Why is their a statute of limitations on criminal acts?

i'm not sure what the outrage over the verdict is. the standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, while in a criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt. so, statute of limitations arguments notwithstanding, it is irrelevant this mother fucker wasn't thrown in jail for this crime.

as for the damage award, he didn't put up a defense. you see the picture in #16? how much would you accept in $$$ to have to go through what this kid went through. i've conservative as hell, and i have noooo problem with this award whatsoever.

You libs probably love this shit.

#1 | Posted by glasshouse

...and you knuckledraggers continue to believe that people get a million dollars if they spill hot coffee on themselves.

i'm wondering if he can now be charged with murder since the victim arguably died from the attack. that would seem to be a necessary element to the crime, and the statute just accrued on the victim's death. where is Moder8 when you need him?

I was wondering the same thing. more so if the victim told them what happened before he died. It seems like a no brainer Man 1 charge.

$150 billion. And I thought Texas had some sort of tort reform in place?

#21 that's only if you're a corporation -- loser...

But corporations are people... no?

No problem, just add it to California's tab!!

Where's Moder8 when you need him?

He'll chime in later.
Right now he's fapping away at the verdict and award.

But corporations are people... no?

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2011-12-22 05:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG

better than people. they don't usually die and can last 100s of years. so, they deserve more love and affection from our lawmakers.

The statute of limitations ran out before the State of Texas could prosecute the case. The eight year old
victim was unable to verbalize what happened
to him. He was severely burned.

12 years later, after multiple surgeries and intense
physical therapy, the victim was able to make a statement
prior to his death, that provided enough evidence for his
survivors to proceed with a wrongful death claim against
the defendant.

That statement and other evidence convinced the jury
that the defendant was ultimately responsible for the
victims death.

#13 | Posted by Bellatrix at 2011-12-22 11:28 AM

Thanks, Bellatrix, for all those extra facts which weren't in the article. It helps to fill in some of the missing pieces.

However, I could not recall any State having a statute of limitations where the crime of murder was concerned, so I did some double-checking to make sure and, as it turns out, the State of Texas has NO statute of limitations either for the crime of murder OR for the crime of attempted murder.

The Texas statute of limitations provides that the length of the statute for an attempt is the same as the statute for the underlying offense. There is no statute of limitations for murder, so there also is no statute of limitations for attempted murder.

And even if the State of Texas finds they are not able to make a charge of "murder" stick because there might not be enough hard medical evidence to directly link the victim's cause of death (at age 20) with complications arising from the burns he suffered (at age 8), then a charge of "attempted murder" whould still stand.

Again, the statute of limitations does not apply to either charge.

Maybe that lawyer is looking at this civil judgment award as a way of later on formulating a case for suing the State of Texas for possible negligence (in not pursuing a criminal prosecution) since that's where the "deep pocket$" would be found.

whould = would