# Rigby killer sues....



## spongebob59 (Dec 10, 2015)

Am I they only one thinking that this should never have been given the air time its getting today ?

The officers involved have already been found not guilty so why is the press giving this prick the publicity :mmm:


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

That is what the press do they are scum, anything for an extra reader or better still a complaint on social media have peole flock to the page.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 10, 2015)

I don't normally favour the rule of an 'eye for an eye'...

This though is one of those rare, for me, exceptions...

Hopefully one of the other 'lifers' does us all a favour and does away with him and soon...


----------



## Imurg (Dec 10, 2015)

He should be thankful it's two teeth he's lost and not two of something else....


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 10, 2015)

Any solicitors taking this case need to take a long hard look at themselves


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Any solicitors taking this case need to take a long hard look at themselves
		
Click to expand...

Edit: misread this, realised he is suing, so my comment doesn't apply. ignore!


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

I wouldn't have an issue if they were tortured and never made it through questioning.

They don't deserve human rights or a fair trial.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			I wouldn't have an issue if they were tortured and never made it through questioning.

They don't deserve human rights or a fair trial.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone deserves a fair trial


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Everyone deserves a fair trial
		
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			Why?
		
Click to expand...

Because it's the right way to do justice


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because it's the right way to do justice
		
Click to expand...

So have they been justifiably punished and did the guy they killed receive justice.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			So have they been justifiably punished and did the guy they killed receive justice.
		
Click to expand...

They recieved the punishment dictated by the laws of this country for the crime they committed 

Everyone should get a "fair trial" to ensure the correct punishment is given by law if found guilty of the crime.


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

That is a crock, no one gets justice the outcome all depends on how much you can pay for a lawyer.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			That is a crock, no one gets justice the outcome all depends on how much you can pay for a lawyer.
		
Click to expand...

Eh ? How much a lawyer cost doesn't change the law or the fact everyone should get a fair trial

So the maximum life sentences were wrong for Rigby killers then ? 

Do you suggest we just do away with the trial and straight onto punishments ?


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Eh ? How much a lawyer cost doesn't change the law or the fact everyone should get a fair trial

So the maximum life sentences were wrong for Rigby killers then ? 

Do you suggest we just do away with the trial and straight onto punishments ?
		
Click to expand...

No but look at Mr loophole who gets all the footballers off driving offences  or the lawyer who kept freddie flintoffs licence when he was doing over a ton down the motorway, you were making out this mythical thing called justice exists and we should have faith in it, I was pointing out that justice is all smoke and mirrors and doesn't exist.

As for Lee Rigby s killers they should have been executed. Now you lot are paying to feed and clothe them and keep them safe and pay their legal fees for ridiculous law suits.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			No but look at Mr loophole who gets all the footballers off driving offences  or the lawyer who kept freddie flintoffs licence when he was doing over a ton down the motorway, you were making out this mythical thing called justice exists and we should have faith in it, I was pointing out that justice is all smoke and mirrors and doesn't exist.

As for Lee Rigby s killers they should have been executed. Now you lot are paying to feed and clothe them and keep them safe and pay their legal fees for ridiculous law suits.
		
Click to expand...

None of that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't get a fair trial - people not being found guilty of various offences doesn't change that 

And the killers of Lee Rigby shouldn't have been executed because the laws of this country don't have capital punishment - can't get any simpler than that 

Yes justice does exist and yes we should have confidence in it as far as its run by humans and they will always be prone to mistakes.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Everyone deserves a fair trial
		
Click to expand...

You have gone on and on on another thread about bombing isis, how many of them are getting a fair trial, or is that different as they're terrorists?
Absolutely disgraceful and them suing over 2 front teeth is nothing to do with justice, it's sheer greed. 
Let them sue and if they win the money should be handed straight to Lee Rigby's kid.


----------



## SaintHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm normally very anti-death penalty, but I can't help thinking for scum like this it should be an option, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. LIke the lads family haven't been through enough already, as Phil rightly says, any lawyer that goes anywhere near this needs to have a long hard look at themselves


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			None of that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't get a fair trial - people not being found guilty of various offences doesn't change that 

And the killers of Lee Rigby shouldn't have been executed because the laws of this country don't have capital punishment - can't get any simpler than that 

Yes justice does exist and yes we should have confidence in it as far as its run by humans and they will always be prone to mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely with LpP on this!

The right to a fair hearing, both criminal and civil has been enshrined in English/British law for 800+ years - and is a fundamental tenet of every other democracy!

And, of course, legal representation goes hand-in-hand with that. Like every other process/project, the quality and effectiveness of that representation may vary depending on the quality and resources  (time/money) invested - which is where the likes of Mr Loophole etc, provide an absolutely first class service.

There should be no issues with any solicitor's adoption of any case!

Without such a 'Rule of Law' approach, there is no proper society. Just a bunch of tribal vigilantes!

I do, however, hope this evil guy loses!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			You have gone on and on on another thread about bombing isis, how many of them are getting a fair trial, or is that different as they're terrorists?
Absolutely disgraceful and them suing over 2 front teeth is nothing to do with justice, it's sheer greed. 
Let them sue and if they win the money should be handed straight to Lee Rigby's kid.
		
Click to expand...

I Would have thought someone in the military would know the difference between conflict and someone being arrested for a crime 

Any ISIS members arrested will go on trial and have a fair trial.


----------



## richy (Dec 10, 2015)

Whoever did this should've taken his eye as well


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

I think under certain circumstances some people should be outlawed they should loose the protection a fair  and just society gives them, terrorism sold be one of those circumstances.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			I think under certain circumstances some people should be outlawed they should loose the protection a fair  and just society gives them, terrorism sold be one of those circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

So basically drop the level of them ?

What stands democracy out is the right people have to a fair trial whether quilty or not - that's the fabric of the society we live in , you can't pick and chose who gets a fair trial or not. Then we become no worse than others


----------



## freddielong (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So basically drop the level of them ?

What stands democracy out is the right people have to a fair trial whether quilty or not - that's the fabric of the society we live in , you can't pick and chose who gets a fair trial or not. Then we become no worse than others
		
Click to expand...

That sounds like something you may have been told at primary school.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

freddielong said:



			That sounds like something you may have been told at primary school.
		
Click to expand...

As opposed to the dark ages and handing out punishments without a fair trial ?! What sort of society is that


----------



## user2010 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As opposed to the dark ages and handing out punishments without a fair trial ?! What sort of society is that

Click to expand...





A Muslim society , I think.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 10, 2015)

Scrotie McBoogerballs said:



			[/U]


A Muslim society , I think.
		
Click to expand...

Er...No!

At least not one that is 'civilised'!

Which is precisely why ISIS is something to be fought against!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I Would have thought someone in the military would know the difference between conflict and someone being arrested for a crime 

Any ISIS members arrested will go on trial and have a fair trial.
		
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, you're off on a tangent, they've had their fair trial, this is a civil case, sueing for compensation for missing teeth.
The terrorists who are plotting to attack Europe in the name of isis claim it's part of the conflict, so conflict in Syria/Iraq bomb, conflict in Europe give them a fair trial. 
Sorry certainly individuals, in my opinion, have through their own choices lost the right to a fair trial.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Quite the opposite, you're off on a tangent, they've had their fair trial, this is a civil case, sueing for compensation for missing teeth.
The terrorists who are plotting to attack Europe in the name of isis claim it's part of the conflict, so conflict in Syria/Iraq bomb, conflict in Europe give them a fair trial. 
Sorry certainly individuals, in my opinion, have through their own choices lost the right to a fair trial.
		
Click to expand...

Why am I off on a tangent ?!

Someone said that some people shouldn't have a fair trial 

So who decides who gets a fair trial or not - on what evidence ? Do we then become a dictatorship when we ignore our own laws and rules based on what people have done and give certain people the ability to ignore those laws ?

No we as a democratic civilised society don't drop to others levels and continue to obey our own laws and rules - when people are charged , the evidence is gained and given and our courts then make the desicion - once again within the laws.

The day we ignore our own laws is the day we become no better than others.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why am I off on a tangent ?!

Someone said that some people shouldn't have a fair trial 

So who decides who gets a fair trial or not - on what evidence ? Do we then become a dictatorship when we ignore our own laws and rules based on what people have done and give certain people the ability to ignore those laws ?

No we as a democratic civilised society don't drop to others levels and continue to obey our own laws and rules - when people are charged , the evidence is gained and given and our courts then make the desicion - once again within the laws.

The day we ignore our own laws is the day we become no better than others.
		
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree, as I believe terrorists who have no regard for our laws or society, should not in anyway be given a day in court to try and explain why they do what they do and be protected by the very democracy they are trying to destroy.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 10, 2015)

These scum lost any rights when they took Lee Rigbys life. 

To say it makes us no better than others is pathetic. 
They chose to take his life that day & now deserve everything they get & more IMO.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			We'll agree to disagree, as I believe terrorists who have no regard for our laws or society, should not in anyway be given a day in court to try and explain why they do what they do and be protected by the very democracy they are trying to destroy.
		
Click to expand...

So people punished without any sort of court case ?! - so who decides the punishment and if they are guilty or not ?

Doesn't seem like a democratic civilised society and certainly not what the UK has been like for hundreds of years.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

Hang on guys, am i missing something? This isn't a debate about their original trial (at which they deserve fair representation), this is about a civil suit after that....


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 10, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Hang on guys, am i missing something? This isn't a debate about their original trial (at which they deserve fair representation), this is about a civil suit after that....
		
Click to expand...

Correct


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Hang on guys, am i missing something? This isn't a debate about their original trial (at which they deserve fair representation), this is about a civil suit after that....
		
Click to expand...

I just responded to a comment that someone made where is was said that the don't deserve a fair trial and it sort of expanded from that. 

As for this specific civil case - no doubt all the evidence will be collated and a decision made just like in every other civil case. I would be surprised if it was awarded in their favour as they already had complaints through the prison service which involved an investigation and some guards suspended whilst it went on. 

Civil/crime etc all should be treated in the same way - a desicion made on all the factual evidence.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Hang on guys, am i missing something? This isn't a debate about their original trial (at which they deserve fair representation), this is about a civil suit after that....
		
Click to expand...

Correct, tried to make that point initially.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I just responded to a comment that someone made where is was said that the don't deserve a fair trial and it sort of expanded from that. 

As for this specific civil case - no doubt all the evidence will be collated and a decision made just like in every other civil case. I would be surprised if it was awarded in their favour as they already had complaints through the prison service which involved an investigation and some guards suspended whilst it went on. 

Civil/crime etc all should be treated in the same way - a desicion made on all the factual evidence.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong, been investigated and no offence committed, he then can, which he's done to bring a civil lawsuit for damages and burden of proof is different. He's after money basically, no individual woukd get done as criminal case is closed, he's going after the prison/government.
We the tax payers are funding it, but it's his right and something by your arguments it looks like you support his right!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Wrong, been investigated and no offence committed, he then can, which he's done to bring a civil lawsuit for damages and burden of proof is different. He's after money basically, no individual woukd get done as criminal case is closed, he's going after the prison/government.
We the tax payers are funding it, but it's his right and something by your arguments it looks like you support his right!
		
Click to expand...

Which bit exactly is wrong ?!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So people punished without any sort of court case ?! - so who decides the punishment and if they are guilty or not ?

Doesn't seem like a democratic civilised society and certainly not what the UK has been like for hundreds of years.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously Phil, these targets we are bombing in Syria/Iraq, what if there are civilian workers forced to work in these oilfields by isis as those workers probably have the skills, because it's a conflict you are happy we kill these innocent people, whose protecting their rights or do we dismiss their deaths by saying in the long run, we could save more?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which bit exactly is wrong ?!
		
Click to expand...

Civil/crime shoukd be treated the same way, there is a different burden of proof and are not treated the same.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Wrong, been investigated and no offence committed, he then can, which he's done to bring a civil lawsuit for damages and burden of proof is different. He's after money basically, no individual woukd get done as criminal case is closed, he's going after the prison/government.
We the tax payers are funding it, but it's his right and something by your arguments it looks like you support his right!
		
Click to expand...

If he wants to bring a civil case then I have no problem with that, he is entitled to raise an action if he chooses.

But if he does choose to do so, he should pay the costs himself.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Seriously Phil, these targets we are bombing in Syria/Iraq, what if there are civilian workers forced to work in these oilfields by isis as those workers probably have the skills, because it's a conflict you are happy we kill these innocent people, whose protecting their rights or do we dismiss their deaths by saying in the long run, we could save more?
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me but when have I ever said I am happy to kill innocent people ?!? 

You are stepping over the line right there.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Excuse me but when have I ever said I am happy to kill innocent people ?!? 

You are stepping over the line right there.
		
Click to expand...

No I'm not, I'm trying to find out were people have rights to be judged fairly and protected and in what circumstances we possibky turn a blind eye?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Civil/crime shoukd be treated the same way, there is a different burden of proof and are not treated the same.
		
Click to expand...

Do you read the whole thing or pick bits out and then make judgments based on those bits ?! 

Crime/civil etc should all be treated in the same way in regards a decision made on the evidence.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

ger147 said:



			If he wants to bring a civil case then I have no problem with that, he is entitled to raise an action if he chooses.

But if he does choose to do so, he should pay the costs himself.
		
Click to expand...

Me neither, except we the tax payer are funding this one!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			No I'm not, I'm trying to find out were people have rights to be judged fairly and protected and in what circumstances we possibky turn a blind eye?
		
Click to expand...

I'm done


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you read the whole thing or pick bits out and then make judgments based on those bits ?! 

Crime/civil etc should all be treated in the same way in regards a decision made on the evidence.
		
Click to expand...

He lost teeth, investigation took place, no crime, no one charged. Civil action is about money, we are paying his legal bill, we will fund the case, we will pay compensation if he wins.
In my opinion it's wrong, but in our system he's allowed because he has rights. I'm sorry but to me he should've lost those rights when found guilty.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When you bring up and an acceptable situation and one where you aren't trying to suggest I'm saying something but to suggest I'm happy innocent people get killed is way over the line as you did is shocking tbh

I'm done
		
Click to expand...

So when you can't have a sensible debate and answer the question, you turn away, I'd call that a cop out.


----------



## hovis (Dec 10, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So when you can't have a sensible debate and answer the question, you turn away, I'd call that a cop out.
		
Click to expand...

Dont encourage him fgs


----------



## Ethan (Dec 10, 2015)

Although I disagree with the Syria bombing, the moral authority to do something like that comes from having a society where the law is blind and even scumbags get a fair trial and a good defence. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Although I disagree with the Syria bombing, the moral authority to do something like that comes from having a society where the law is blind and even scumbags get a fair trial and a good defence. Can't have it both ways.
		
Click to expand...

No issue with a fair trial, it's the publicly funded civil case against the Prison Service and possible payout that sticks in my throat.


----------



## user2010 (Dec 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



I'm done

Click to expand...





Yeah, Right! If only......


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 11, 2015)

+1 for LiverpoolPhil here.

Everyone, no matter what the *ALLEDGED* crime, deserves a fair trial, no matter how certain it *appears* that they're guilty. 

I've highlighted two important words there...

Some of you should watch Bridge of Spies that is out at the moment - a film based (albeit loosely at times) on a US lawyer who represented a Soviet Spy, much to his own vilification from the general public.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 11, 2015)

If I understood correctly, from the radio yesterday, the public purse is not contributing anything to the cost of Adebolajo's claim... 


What riles me is that he, or his representatives, are using [abusing] a system he does not recognise...
He didn't attend his own appeal because of this very reason...


----------



## User62651 (Dec 11, 2015)

+2 for Liverpool Phil.
The day you hand justice to the mob or make on the spot decisions about alleged criminality without studying evidence and letting accused people have a fair hearing, there is no civilised society left. When those infamous child abduction cases like Soham were ongoing maybe 10 or 15 years ago innocent professional people came under attack as the enraged mob out for justice couldn't tell the difference between a paedophile and a paedeatrician. That's why we leave justice to those intelligent enough, trained and experienced in applying the law of the land i.e. Courts or Police, no matter how frustrated that can leave us at times or how unjust it might feel at the time. The Law is never going to be perfect but it has to be upheld.
Unrelated but glad to see the South African courts realised Pistorius's original case was wrongly judged and revisited it, calling a murder charge. That restored some faith in justice for me anyway.


----------



## JCW (Dec 11, 2015)

If it been me i knock more then his teeth out , Nuff said , move on


----------



## Fish (Dec 11, 2015)

There's a simple remedy to save the taxpayers coffers in specific cases of mass murder by terrorism, police killers, child killers and other heinous crimes, and that's bring back the death penalty, no claims, job done..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 11, 2015)

Fish said:



			There's a simple remedy to save the taxpayers coffers in specific cases of mass murder by terrorism, police killers, child killers and other heinous crimes, and that's bring back the death penalty, no claims, job done..
		
Click to expand...

And what happens if someone who was found guilty of said crime is found innocent 10 years later 

Been enough cases over the years where convictions have been found to be incorrect - the Guildford Bombers were all found to be innocent 20 years later


----------



## Fish (Dec 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And what happens if someone who was found guilty of said crime is found innocent 10 years later 

Been enough cases over the years where convictions have been found to be incorrect - the Guildford Bombers were all found to be innocent 20 years later
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of no brainers that should be put straight to bed, I don't wish to discuss the example you've given, well because..


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 11, 2015)

As the law stands, he is fully entitled to sue. The law is right, there must a recourse to test the system if a failing is perceived. In his particular case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. A pity there isn't an opportunity for the law to counter-sue for a frivolous case.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 11, 2015)

Fish said:



			There are plenty of no brainers that should be put straight to bed, I don't wish to discuss the example you've given, well because..
		
Click to expand...

Killing someone because they killed someone 

Does two wrong make a right ? 

We are a civilised country with laws and rules and if people don't abide by those then they are subject to punishments we have within our laws - taking someone's life as a punishment is no better IMO than taking someone's as a crime. 

The Guilford 4 were wrong convicted due to corrupt police and falsifying evidence. They were rightly released were the true facts became known.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 11, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As the law stands, he is fully entitled to sue. The law is right, there must a recourse to test the system if a failing is perceived. In his particular case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. A pity there isn't an opportunity for the law to counter-sue for a frivolous case.
		
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc 

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc 

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?
		
Click to expand...

Not to fall out or heated argument, here goes Phil, in a nutshell
There was an altercation involving him and 5 Prison Officers, his head hit a window and he lost 2 teeth, he claimed assault, they claimed he got violent and were trying to control him, Prison Officers suspended and criminal investigation took place, Police investigated and brought no charges.
He is now sueing the Prison Service for compensation for injuries received.
I totally agree with the right to a fair trial, but in a civil case no criminal charges are brought and I think there is no Jury. I also agree with Hobbit with the right to bring a Civil case to court, my issue for him and anybody in Jail is, we the tax payer are footing the bill to defend the action, pay the wages of the court staff and the compensation if he wins,


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 11, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As the law stands, he is fully entitled to sue. The law is right, there must a recourse to test the system if a failing is perceived. In his particular case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. A pity there isn't an opportunity for the law to counter-sue for a frivolous case.
		
Click to expand...

There has been cases recently were prisoners who lied in court when sueing the Prison Service have been done for Perjury and received further custodial sentenced.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 11, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Some of you should watch Bridge of Spies that is out at the moment - a film based (albeit loosely at times) on a US lawyer who represented a Soviet Spy, much to his own vilification from the general public.
		
Click to expand...

Good example, excellent film if you can stay with it.
A bit like Shawshank in testing the staying/observation powers.
I was old enough to remember the Powers plane being shot down and the uncertainty of those times.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc 

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?
		
Click to expand...

Because the burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt', but civil cases are 'only' 'on the balance of probabilities'.

In this case, the officers were cleared of *criminal* wrong doing, but may still be found guilty in a civil case!


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc 

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?
		
Click to expand...

The burden to prove isn't quite so high. Its wrong, but that's what it is.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 11, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			The burden to prove isn't quite so high. Its wrong, but that's what it is.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah just doesn't seem right at all.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 11, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Because the burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt', but civil cases are 'only' 'on the balance of probabilities'.

In this case, the officers were cleared of *criminal* wrong doing, but may still be found guilty in a civil case!
		
Click to expand...

Which seems totally bonkers. If there was no crime committed what balance of probability is there left to establish. He got violent, got injured being restrained. More taxpayer money wasted. We should be able to counter-sue


----------

