tycho wrote:tycho wrote:tycho wrote:Elder wrote:Lolest! wrote:tycho wrote:One can even press for the assault charges and win.
you mean damages?
Would a court hear a tort case while a criminal case on which it depends is yet to be concluded? Yes.
Like in this situation, won't all statements point towards a crime that would have needed some 'violence' inorder to enforce the law?
I think I now know why the answer is 'yes'. 'Innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt'.
Right?
Wrong!
These are laws. So it depends on the lawyer who stands before the judge.
Perfect!
@tychos, I was not addressing the merits of the case here.
The question I answered is whether a court can hear a tort case while the criminal one is going on. The answer to that is yes. The fact that the state is prosecuting your assailant for assault does not mean that you can't institute a civil case for battery (in tort it is not assault but battery). I can't remember well but the law was changed sometime back (or something like that) to provide that a criminal action against someone is not a bar to civil action against the same person and or vice versa.
And FYI in a criminal case the threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt' while for a civil case it is 'on a balance of probabilities'.
He who can express in words the ardour of his love, has but little love to express. - Petrach, Son. (That men by various ways arrive at the same end. - Montaigne, The Essays of.)