http://www.explosm.net/comics/2756/

Epic Fail

Please no. Now I have to read them for 2 hours.

Makes me think of Stephen Fry talking about his school years. Whenever someone gave him grief about his sixuality or tried to start a fight, he'd say, "You really shouldn't do that! It's turning me on!" I'm not surprised the bullying quickly evaporated.

*Also, stereotypes:

Which one, the gays fighting with their wrists and losing?
Or (assuming they're American) that they want to sue for anything?

Either way I laughed, thanks

the lawsuit would yield little to no success because the fight was initiated before the declaration of sixuality, and hate crimes are criminal not civil


that technique might get you out of a fight though

You can still file a file a civil suit. Just because a person is criminally charged, or even found guilty, has no bearing on the ability to civilly sue someone, although being guilty of a criminal case for the same act will certainly aid a civil case's evidence since burden of proof in a civil case is generally far lower. No idea where you came up with this but very untrue.

In the interest of continuing unnecessary arguments - you cannot sue specifically for a 'hate crime' - it would just be normal battery (where I live, anyway).

Hate crimes are a category of criminal offenses, not civil torts.

Oof: If we're going to be uber PC -- Doesn't Steven Fry's joke rely on the same stereotypes you're rebuking the cartoon for? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Both, actually.


Well, technically, it would probably be an aggravating circumstance. You could get more money and/or the perp could face more severe sanctions.


Well, yes, but I was kidding.

in america it would likely be successful, pretty much any violence perpetrated against any one who is a different race, religious, or sixual oriented is considered a hate crime. regardless if the fight was actually motivated by bigotry.

Yes, you can.

OP IIRC gave the indication they were from Canada in a post sometime back, in Canada a criminal act is an offence against the state. That one is subject to a significant amount of proof that a hate crime occurred.

Regardless of whether or not criminal charges were pressed, the person can still be sued in civil court for personal damages (and a slew of other things), and the burden of proof compared to criminal court is significantly less.

A person can find themselves in court twice for the same thing for different reasons, and if a criminal court were to convict a person in question for a hate crime, that would significantly help a civil case in recovering damages. Even in the US this is true.

I see no Canadian connection, but, if true, that doesn't change the fact that a 'hate crime' is a criminal offense not a civil tort. You can sue him for battery and evidence that he was found guilty in a criminal court of a hate-inspired battery/assault (which is the hate crime - the 'hate' part is a hat the underlying crime wears) will make your case a slam-dunk case, but you aren't suing him for a "hate crime". If anything it's merely an aggravating factor for damages as Oof suggested, unless the laws are different in Canada (they may be).

Since you drove me to read internet comics, take http://www.trolldad.com/comic/lfnpj.

In a civil court you would not sue a person because of a crime committed. That would be called double jeopardy. You would sue a person because of damages inflicted upon you. I'm amazed that people (if in fact from North America, both the US and Canada are very similar) don't understand the difference between criminal and civil. I won't delve into what specifically constitutes a hate crime because to me it's a waste of time and depends on the jurisdiction.

That is why in a criminal court has reasonable doubt (a heavy burden of proof lies upon those levying charges, beyond reasonable doubt), and civil courts merely a preponderance of evidence to establish liability. They are NOT the same thing, and a person even not guilty of a crime can still be civilly sued and forced to pay up. In truth, the criminality of something is quite irrelevant (or even the specifics of what crime may have been committed) to the ability to civilly sue someone, but yes, a person can be nailed twice for the same thing, since both to not address liability in the same respect.

This is all out of left field and leads me to believe you didn't read or didn't comprehend my post. You also don't know what double jeopardy actually means but I won't bother to get into it.

Crimes do not always equal torts. You punch me. You have committed a criminal assault and a civil battery. I can sue you for battery. The state can try you for assault.

I punch you because you're black. You can sue me for battery. The state can try me for a hate crime - the underlying crime for the hate crime is still assault. The 'hate' is merely a modifier.

You say I have an STD. I can sue you for slander. The state cannot arrest you. Slander is a tort. It's not a crime.

Hate crimes are criminal offenses. They aren't torts. You can't sue for them. You can sue for the underlying assault, which I've said in every post. Evidence that you were previously convicted of a hate-inspired assault against me boosts your case.

Double jeopardy doesn't come into play in a civil/criminal context. Double jeopardy is about a state trying you for the same crime twice. In fact, in the US, two states can try you for the same crime (even if one state already acquitted you) because they're different sovereigns. It has nothing to do with civil claims.

Sometimes it must be awesome to be a dad.http://www.trolldad.com/comic/ik1v3 you can play on your kids.

If a crime has been committed it would be done criminally. If you're suing someone for battery, since battery is a crime, it's a criminal case. Both of those you just iterated here.. one case, criminal.

Suing for battery, criminal. Hate modifiers, still criminal.. same case.

The criminal case handles the issue of crime, not damages. Someone can very well still be sued in civil court for damages with or without a criminal case against them. There's no bigger proof of this than the OJ Simpson case. He went through a criminal case to establish criminal liability for killing two people. He was found not guilty. He was still sued after the fact in civil court for civil liability in damages, not the crime itself, and was in fact liable, or for more layman terms, guilt. The burden of proof was not met and reasonable doubt existed enough to call him guilty in a criminal case, in a civil case it was enough proof that he was liable for damages. Apples, oranges.

That's my last attempt to point out that someone can in fact be sued for an act of the same thing in a civil court for liability in damages even if they get tried in a criminal case, but in a different scope since criminal cases are not the same as civil, which obviously was pointed out but not understood very well. Hope people get it at this point, otherwise, you're on your own.

No. You're suing him for civil battery. Don't you understand your own distinction? There's a crime code that lists CRIMES and civil law that defines TORTS. Look up "tort" on wikipedia.


OJ Simpson was tried by the state for criminal homicide. He was acquitted. He was then sued for wrongful death. He lost the civil case. Homicide is a crime. Wrongful death is a tort.