- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:23 am to MasonTiger
Plot twists make the story more compelling.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:24 am to just me
Good talk
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:29 am to just me
quote:
quote:
the girl in the report was a third party witness.
No. She may be a third party but she is not a third party witness
Where do you derive this bizarre notion that there is a definition of third party witness which incorporates the concept of impartiality? There isn't. A third-party witness is merely a witness other than the primary parties to the pendent legal proceedings. "Third-party" is simply a descriptor modifying "witness." The use of "third party" in this context is no different that the use of "third party" in the phrase "third party discovery," i.e. discovery directed at parties other than the plaintiffs and defendants in a civil suit. Here, the Long woman was indeed a "third party witness," because she was (a) a witness who (b) is not a party to the criminal proceedings (i.e. complainant, defendant, state). It's that straightforward. There is no unique definition of "third party witness" which rests upon lack of bias. It's not how the word is used in the law. Third-party witnesses are often biased.
Note that Black's specifically states that third party may be used as an adjective, which is how it is being deployed within the phrase "third party witness." Note further that there is no separate entry for "third party witness," since it is merely the combination of the adjective "third party" and the noun "witness," which are separately defined. The police used the terminology properly. Long was a third party witness according to the legal definition, though she may not be impartial.
"third party, n. (1818) A person who is not a party to a lawsuit, agreement, or other transaction but who is usu. somehow implicated in it; someone other than the principal parties. — Also termed outside party; third person. See party. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 281; Parties 49.] — third-party, adj."
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 10:31 am
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:32 am to just me
quote:
If the Shady4 started the fight with the football players as suggested by the only third party witnesses to date, then the football players were justified in using force. The football players did not have to leave the parking lot or back down. In addition, the football players were justified in using force in defense of other football players if they reasonably believed that intervention was necessary to protect the other person.
Is it a lawyer thing to deliberately obfuscate or is that a just me thing?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:32 am to The312
quote:
After over a week of public vilification, redemption for the football players. Redemption for Jordan Jefferson. Of course, haters gonna hate.
epic fail
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:43 am to The312
You did a fine job of stating Black's definition of a third party.
You failed on the third party witness analysis.
Do you understand the history of the "third party witness" term?
Do you know what it means for a witness to be identified with or aligned with a party?
Do you understand the repercussions of a judge aligning or identifying a witness with a party?
You failed on the third party witness analysis.
Do you understand the history of the "third party witness" term?
Do you know what it means for a witness to be identified with or aligned with a party?
Do you understand the repercussions of a judge aligning or identifying a witness with a party?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:47 am to uway
quote:I stated a hypothetical fact and then paraphrased the law of self-defense in Louisiana. How that can be interpreted as obfuscation takes the imagination of a child.
Is it a lawyer thing to deliberately obfuscate or is that a just me thing?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:48 am to uway
quote:
Is it a lawyer thing to deliberately obfuscate or is that a just me thing?
No obfuscation. Just a common sense reading of Louisiana law.
In plain language, you can't start a fight, i.e., be the aggressor or instigator, and then expect the sympathy/protection/remedy of the law when you get your arse kicked.
Also, everyone seems fixated on the claim that JJ kicked a defenseless guy in the head. I saw the video, and it certainly doesn't seem clear to me that's what happened. So basically the main support for that claim is the word of the aggressor and a woman who was apparently closely "acquainted" with the aggressor.
If attacked I can easily imagine a situation where I'd kick the SOB who attacked me, if for no other reason than to prevent further attack of me or others. The law governing this requires an interpretation of the word "reasonable" and a reliable account of whether the attacker had clearly chosen to withdraw from (or was obviously unable to continue) the attack at that point. The bottom line is neither you nor anyone else I've read here has sufficient information to make that judgement.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:55 am to CptBengal
Perhaps, if the guy wasn't actually defenseless and a threat trying to get up and continue fighting.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 10:58 am to xBIGxEASYx
quote:You will read "defenseless" and "fetal position" from people who have no idea what might have happened.
Perhaps, if the guy wasn't actually defenseless and a threat trying to get up and continue fighting.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:00 am to just me
quote:
just me
Thanks for getting my hopes up......for nothing.
You owe me some personal redemption, fwiw.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:02 am to just me
quote:
You will read "defenseless" and "fetal position" from people who have no idea what might have happened.
Exactly!
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:02 am to just me
quote:
You did a fine job of stating Black's definition of a third party.
You failed on the third party witness analysis.
Do you understand the history of the "third party witness" term?
Do you know what it means for a witness to be identified with or aligned with a party?
Do you understand the repercussions of a judge aligning or identifying a witness with a party?
INdeed, I cited a credible, objective, authoritative source to demonstrate how the adjective "third party" is utilized in the very simple phrase "third party witness." I also offered a parallel example - "third party discovery" - in which "third party" is used in the identical descriptive sense. Rather than responding in kind, you have replied with...concocted rhetorical questions.
"Third party witness" is a straighforward term. It just refers to a witness who isn't a party to the legal proceedings. That's it. Scour the earth, you will find no credible authority which incorporates lsck of bias into the legal definition of third-party witness. Again, third-party witnesses can be - and often are - biased in favor of one of the primary parties. They're still third party witnesses.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:03 am to Festus
quote:This story is not over.
Thanks for getting my hopes up......for nothing.
You owe me some personal redemption, fwiw.
ETA: What kind of personal redemption did you have in mind and would a cold beer suffice?
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 11:14 am
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:11 am to The312
Let's start with simple concepts and work our way toward the more difficult.
First, if Lowery were to be charged and he needed to make a defense, what would Long be called?
Second, what would Long be called if she faced charges, but made a deal with the DA to avoid those charges?
Third, prior to Federal Rule of Evidence 607 when could a party impeach a witness under federal law.
Fourth, what does it mean when a witness is identified with a party?
Fifth, what criteria were considered to determine if a witness can be treated as a hostile witness?
Many law professors prefer the Socratic method when schooling their students.
First, if Lowery were to be charged and he needed to make a defense, what would Long be called?
Second, what would Long be called if she faced charges, but made a deal with the DA to avoid those charges?
Third, prior to Federal Rule of Evidence 607 when could a party impeach a witness under federal law.
Fourth, what does it mean when a witness is identified with a party?
Fifth, what criteria were considered to determine if a witness can be treated as a hostile witness?
Many law professors prefer the Socratic method when schooling their students.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:12 am to The312
quote:
Where do you derive this bizarre notion that there is a definition of third party witness which incorporates the concept of impartiality? There isn't.
thank you....
Oh and JustMe:
JustBOOM.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:15 am to CptBengal
quote:
thank you....
Oh and JustMe:
JustBOOM.
Arguing by proxy? Better wait until this particular issue is settled.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:16 am to just me
quote:
Arguing by proxy?
nope.
quote:
Better wait until this particular issue is settled.
Will she somehow NOT become a third party witness?
I'd like for you to explain how that is gonna happen......
Posted on 8/26/11 at 11:21 am to CptBengal
quote:I understand that you're not a law student or lawyer. I'll ask very easy questions.
Will she somehow NOT become a third party witness?
I'd like for you to explain how that is gonna happen......
If Lowery is charged, and he needs to provide a defense, and he plans to use Long as a witness, what is she called then?
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News