Legal Stuff & Discussion in English

[Baghera]

а как по-английски "наезд на профессиональность"?

Slander per se (oral)
Libel per se (written)
Damages are presumed - i.e. don't have to prove that any damages were in fact sustained.

[Baghera]

т.е., и то, и другое а) зависит от контекста в котором сказано, б) относительно, поскольку может быть доказуемо-недоказуемо?

лан, у нас получается блуждание вокруг да около

че-та плоха как-та вас учат в ло скул

я бы пошел от стандартных "means, motive, opportunity"
в чем было намерение "клиента"

как он его реализовал

отсюда - виновность/невиновность

That's criminal liability. Civil liability has different standards/measurements and (almost always) requires proof of damages sustained.

[Shtirliz]

Тхатьс цриминал лиабилиты. Цивил лиабилиты хас дифферент стандардс/меасурементс анд (алмост алщаыс) реэуирес прооф оф дамагес сустаинед.

Ета даже не стандарт криминала. По такому стандарту можно взять лубого бомжа с улици и обвинить в любои преступлени. У бомжа всегда есть [ means, motive and opportunity]:evillaugh

Яб не опирался на телевизионные крим. драмы откуда подчёрпывать знание о законе.

[Птиц]

Трудновато спец термины обьяснить на другом языке :rtyu:

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?

[Shtirliz]

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?

May i answer?

[Птиц]

May i answer?

absolutely, yes

:10:

[Odinokiy_Ostrov]

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?

No. Every crime has it's own elements. The prosecution has to establish each and every one of those beyond a reasonable doubt. (in criminal cases only, of course).

[Птиц]

No. Every crime has it's own elements. The prosecution has to establish each and every one of those beyond a reasonable doubt. (in criminal cases only, of course).

I think you're talking about proof of guilt, i.e. whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of committing a crime. But that's step two, right?

[Shtirliz]

absolutely, yes

:10:

The [ means, motive and opportunity] is a theory used by the police to look for suspects. This principle has not place in the legal theory of proof. In addition, the rules of evidence ( the method of proof) do allow prosecution to use motive, intent, absense of misstake, common scheme or plan, identity, opportunity or preparation to COUNTER the defence argumnet.

For example, if you buy insurance policy and later on your house burns down, the prosecution, in a charge of arson, will be able to use, for example motive as a COUNTER argument to your allegation of inonsence. They are specificly prohibited form INTRODUCING it as an element.

Furthermore, in civil cases, evidence of defendants character is specifically prohibited ( unless it is an issue)

[Птиц]

The [ means, motive and opportunity] is a theory used by the police to look for suspects.

Which is another way of saying what I just said about "a crime considered a crime, and a suspect considered a suspect", isn't it?