This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This was a garbage case. By that I mean Chad is obviously broke and Becky's attorney is being paid by the hour. Neither has any motivation to spend the money necessary to try the case properly, and each is obstinate enough to persist and refuse settlement. Both parties balk at the prospect of paying for discovery, or paying a mediator hundreds of dollars an hour to help them reach a resolution, so they end up spending more money on legal fees so they can have a trial. Becky will soon find that she is going to have to pay her attorney even more money to enforce the judgment.
The downstream consequences of this are that the attorneys didn't have much to work with. For example, you write:
No, this is probably one of the more competent things his attorney did. This would be a great question to ask in a deposition. Unfortunately Mr. Chad probably didn't want to pay for a deposition, so the only opportunity he has to ask it is at trial, where he runs the risk of a jury hearing it at the same time he does. If she provides a reasonable explanation for the transfers that have nothing to do with the money he owes her, then that's it. If he leaves it alone, then the jury might assume that she used it to pay herself back. It appears he was correct on this point, as at least one member of the jury—you—was willing to reach this conclusion.
In the absence of other evidence this is a totally reasonable conclusion to reach given that you're forced to make a decision, but it's not based in anything other than your own intuitive read on the case. The women whom you complain about have the right to reach a different conclusion, and they aren't required to make the same inferences you do. You spend a lot of time on how the evidence is all based on her word and that the texts are all cherry-picked and the defense didn't present any evidence. The judge's job is to determine whether evidence is admissible, and the jury's job is to determine the weight and credibility of that evidence. It seems to me that your beef is that other members of the jury found Becky's testimony more credible than you did. It also seems to me that you're making an inference that since the Plaintiff has relied on her testimony and "cherry-picking", that there is other evidence out there that would be favorable to the defendant.
I don't want to make any rash statements about a case that I know next to nothing about, but as a civil defense attorney, I can't imagine keeping out evidence that might help my client. It's a different story if the evidence is irrelevant, or is a double-edged sword. That the Plaintiff didn't want the jury to see certain evidence doesn't necessarily mean that it makes the defendant look good; it could be that it just makes both parties look bad. More likely is that it doesn't move the needle one way or the other and the Plaintiff wants to keep things as simple as possible, which means admitting as little evidence as possible. I've seen enough text conversations of arguments over the years to know that it takes a certain amount of intellectual energy to follow them, especially as they tend to make references to people and events that aren't in the immediate chain, and trying to explain all that to a jury would be tedious and time-consuming. Including more than is necessary doesn't help anyone.
It sounds to me like she presented sufficient evidence to make a case for the $35,000, you just think that the $22,000 she took from his account was to compensate for that loss, even though you're basing this on an inference and not any explicit evidence. You also seem to think that the Plaintiff has credibility problems. Both of these are fine, and you're within your rights to make these inferences. Where I disagree is with your characterization that the two "Karens" on the jury were somehow acting objectively incorrectly, which I don't think they were. You're also claiming that they were biased in favor of the Plaintiff, which is probably true, but everyone is biased to some degree. And you weren't even as far apart as you make it sound; you were at least willing to give her something, and they weren't willing to give her everything, so find a number in the middle and call it a day.
This actually help assuage my consciousness that I had participated in some small injustice for failing to hold my ground. I can easily recognize that I have my own internal biases towards people displaying overt emotion in situations that construe to me as manipulative, which i think occurred in this case. And following the bank statements towards the 22k + seeing her as manipulative likely lead me to the conclusion I did.
I think its useful to get context that the lack of evidence might have been a strategy from the defense attorney to try and hang heavily on the burden of proof being on the plaintiff. I just think the plaintiff cut a far more sympathetic figure to large swaths of the jury, and the defense needed something more to push the needle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link