|
|
| Re: Salaam does know what ''murder'' and ''Cold Blood'' mean (1221824) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Salaam does know what ''murder'' and ''Cold Blood'' mean |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Sep 2 09:43:48 2014, in response to Re: Salaam does know what ''murder'' and ''Cold Blood'' mean, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Sep 2 06:10:06 2014. The question from a legal standpoint is whether Garner would have suffered the heart attack had it not been for the takedown. It's a question of causation.There's two types of causation required for there to be civil legal liability: 1) proximate cause; and 2) cause-in-fact, also known as the "but-for" rule. For example, "but-for" the chokehold, Garner would not have suffered a heart attack and died. Proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held to be the cause of that injury. Proximate cause is confusing because usually, once the but-for rule is met you also have satisfied the proximate cause standards...usually, but not always. In other words, proximate cause is a limitation on cause-in-fact. For example: was the death foreseeable? Was it foreseeable that a chokehold will crush the larynx and result in a heart attack? If a jury says yes it was foreseeable, then the standard is met. If the jury says no, that's too remote (unlikely to happen), then there is no proximate cause and absent another theory for establishing proximate cause, no tort liability. |
|
|
|