robber may sue man who overpowered him

[BanjoJohn]

Apparently a jury of your peers, who heard all the facts, disagree with you.

I've often wondered about these "peers" of the defendant that would be on the jury. Let's say we have a murdering crackhead on trial. Would the jury consist of 12 murdering crackheads? I'm sure that a murdering crackhead wouldn't have any peers that were upstanding hardworking taxpaying citizens.

On the flip side, we have a property or lease dispute, should people that don't own anything be allowed to sit on the jury?

Is everyone your "peer"?

 

[ShawnZR-1]

I think the only thing you have to be to be a 'peer' is a breathing human. Even that could be debated...

 

[palmettomoon]

Apparently a jury of your peers, who heard all the facts, disagree with you.

You obviously deal with the lowest common denominator too frequently. I can assure you that there were few on that jury that I'd consider my "peers."

 

[palmettomoon]

I think the only thing you have to be to be a 'peer' is a breathing human. Even that could be debated...

Breathing and possessing sufficient communication skills that a lawyer's verbal contortions can bend your thinking to their position.

 

[joewilly]

She needs to sue Starbucks for the prices they charge for their coffee.

 

[jr308]

If our courts were loser pay, as in the losing party pays all the legal expenses, this crap wouldn't happen nearly as often.

 

[Swab]

Did you even read the article on the link I posted? So if she didn't spill it on her legs, but rather drank it and burned her entire mouth, would that be different?

I guess if you go to Subway and ate some glass in a meatball sub, and they had had 700 reports of having glass in their meatballs but didn't tell anyone, you would just chalk it up to your fault?

• McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

Yes, I read it and I'm also familiar with the incident. Also, I still stand by my original post.