Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

#T3BE 242 - Full Question Text for Patrons (Patreon)

Published:
2021-08-27 04:05:01
Imported:
2022-10

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I'll repost my answer on twitter here for Patrons to see (and for it to be unthreaded!): At a whim (and my first attempt at answering one of these) I'm going with-- A) Abuse of discretion. Testimony of previous injury could be argued to be irrelevant as whether or not a building is dangerous relies on the current status of the building re:rennovations. My guess is neglect could be determined without a need to look at prior cases, as prior cases may prejudice a jury. Whether or not the balcony was insufficient is independent of priors, and it was not a ncessary part of the prosecutor's original claim. Additionally (not a part of what was on twitter, but later musings as I post this); prior negligence proves only that the company was negligent in those cases, and those individuals aren't clients of the prosecutor and an argument could be made for irrelevance there as well. A history of negligence conveys intent but this isn't a case about past negligence this is a case about curent negligence. As such, priors would be an abuse of discretion. I'm probably repeating myself somewhere in here. My language in this is overly certain, but it's hard to phrase these things any other way. Also based this on just the patreon text and not the discussion in episode as I've yet to listen.

Quark Twain

I'm going with C. They're arguing the case should have been heard "as new" or on its own terms, independent of past incidents. It could also be A, since the court did apply discretion. The court had to decide if the evidential value of the past incidents outweighed their prejudicial effect. If the past incidents share similar characteristics and establish a pattern of negligence, it might be appropriate to allow their inclusion.