Marcus McGee Launches Civil Case Against Gerrard & Co.
- Thread starter Frogfish
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
He'll get nowhere, how the fuck can he when the judge said Gerrard's actions were understandable taken into context with the entire nights events.
Not that it matters anyway, I suppose the cunts hoping Stevie'll throw him a few bob to shut the fuck up & go away. I'd tell the cunt to fuck off & force it to court to embarrass the manc twat.
Not that it matters anyway, I suppose the cunts hoping Stevie'll throw him a few bob to shut the fuck up & go away. I'd tell the cunt to fuck off & force it to court to embarrass the manc twat.
I liked how during the case he went from being a "DJ" to a "local businesssman"
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930648#msg930648 date=1251030779]
He'll get nowhere, how the fuck can he when the judge said Gerrard's actions were understandable taken into context with the entire nights events.
Not that it matters anyway, I suppose the cunts hoping Stevie'll throw him a few bob to shut the fuck up & go away. I'd tell the cunt to fuck off & force it to court to embarrass the manc twat.
[/quote]
Better still he'll need to fork out more than a bob or two for his lawyer too.
He'll get nowhere, how the fuck can he when the judge said Gerrard's actions were understandable taken into context with the entire nights events.
Not that it matters anyway, I suppose the cunts hoping Stevie'll throw him a few bob to shut the fuck up & go away. I'd tell the cunt to fuck off & force it to court to embarrass the manc twat.
[/quote]
Better still he'll need to fork out more than a bob or two for his lawyer too.
But surely then he'd have been better off doing the case against only those found guilty. How can you sue someone for something they havent done? The law says he hasnt done anything wrong, so then he cant be sued. The others can, of course, but not Stevie.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930666#msg930666 date=1251031862]
But surely then he'd have been better off doing the case against only those found guilty. How can you sue someone for something they havent done? The law says he hasnt done anything wrong, so then he cant be sued. The others can, of course, but not Stevie.
[/quote]
Not strictly correct. He was found not guilty of the charge against him - in a civil court that doesn't mean he's not guilty of everything. You can still sue even if someone is found Not Guilty - in fact that is often when they are sued.
But surely then he'd have been better off doing the case against only those found guilty. How can you sue someone for something they havent done? The law says he hasnt done anything wrong, so then he cant be sued. The others can, of course, but not Stevie.
[/quote]
Not strictly correct. He was found not guilty of the charge against him - in a civil court that doesn't mean he's not guilty of everything. You can still sue even if someone is found Not Guilty - in fact that is often when they are sued.
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
That's fucking stupid.
In fact, that's obscenely stupid.
In fact, that's obscenely stupid.
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930681#msg930681 date=1251032571]
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930685#msg930685 date=1251032773]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930681#msg930681 date=1251032571]
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
[/quote]
Maybe he did deserve it, but if a group of lads take matters into there own hands, then they're going to be held accountable.
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930681#msg930681 date=1251032571]
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
[/quote]
Maybe he did deserve it, but if a group of lads take matters into there own hands, then they're going to be held accountable.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930666#msg930666 date=1251031862]
But surely then he'd have been better off doing the case against only those found guilty. How can you sue someone for something they havent done? The law says he hasnt done anything wrong, so then he cant be sued. The others can, of course, but not Stevie.
[/quote]
How much money have the others got ?
But surely then he'd have been better off doing the case against only those found guilty. How can you sue someone for something they havent done? The law says he hasnt done anything wrong, so then he cant be sued. The others can, of course, but not Stevie.
[/quote]
How much money have the others got ?
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930686#msg930686 date=1251032896]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
As I said above - the court only says you are not guilty of the charge against you - that doesn't mean you are not guilty of everything !
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
As I said above - the court only says you are not guilty of the charge against you - that doesn't mean you are not guilty of everything !
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930686#msg930686 date=1251032896]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
One of the Omagh bombers was found not guilty of the bombing yet also lost a civil case in damages to the families of the vicitims.
Different standards of proof are involved.
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
One of the Omagh bombers was found not guilty of the bombing yet also lost a civil case in damages to the families of the vicitims.
Different standards of proof are involved.
I'm not sure what case this fella thinks he has.
He claims he has dental bills. Yes, fair enough but surely he can claim via the criminal injuries compensation board? Afterall, forgetting Gerrard for a minute, he did report a crime and there were convictions resulting from it.
In terms of his legal bills, that's rather laughable isn't it? What would the case have cost him? The CPS would have covered it. The only legal fees he would have faced would be as a result of this lawsuit!
He claims he has dental bills. Yes, fair enough but surely he can claim via the criminal injuries compensation board? Afterall, forgetting Gerrard for a minute, he did report a crime and there were convictions resulting from it.
In terms of his legal bills, that's rather laughable isn't it? What would the case have cost him? The CPS would have covered it. The only legal fees he would have faced would be as a result of this lawsuit!
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930693#msg930693 date=1251033402]
I could be wrong, but isn't it a different level of whats termed to be guilty needed in a civil case?
[/quote]
Two different questions are essentially being asked, regarding the same incident. One has already been answered in the criminal case.
The civil case will be a Tort case so the court will probably look at the following :
1. Did Gerrard owe the Manc a duty of care ?
2. Was that duty of care breached ?
3. Did damages arise from that breach of duty ?
It'll probably cost Gerrard a few quid, less than half a weeks wages.
I could be wrong, but isn't it a different level of whats termed to be guilty needed in a civil case?
[/quote]
Two different questions are essentially being asked, regarding the same incident. One has already been answered in the criminal case.
The civil case will be a Tort case so the court will probably look at the following :
1. Did Gerrard owe the Manc a duty of care ?
2. Was that duty of care breached ?
3. Did damages arise from that breach of duty ?
It'll probably cost Gerrard a few quid, less than half a weeks wages.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930686#msg930686 date=1251032896]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
I think you are forgetting one of the biggest cases in history. OJ was innocent :🙂 but lost all his money in the cival case. Two different systems, one is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' to convict, the other certainly not.
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
I think you are forgetting one of the biggest cases in history. OJ was innocent :🙂 but lost all his money in the cival case. Two different systems, one is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' to convict, the other certainly not.
Ross you should be the club's player liaison lawyer.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930685#msg930685 date=1251032773]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930681#msg930681 date=1251032571]
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
[/quote]
fucking hell now that's an idea!!!!
If you fancy it gis a shout i'll be there to back you up!!
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930681#msg930681 date=1251032571]
Quite a few cases return not guilty verdicts in a courtroom only to see them found to be responsible in a civil suit (as you'd know). I don't doubt that SG has a very good chance to walk away without paying anything, but for the case as a whole, i'd expect the manc to come out a winner.
All bias aside i think it's fair to say that the bloke didn't do much to warrent a bunch of lads smacking him about.
[/quote]
He was winding him up all fucking night, making a few threats of his own, & even making snide comments over the PA system, as testified in court by independent witnesses. He deserved everything he fucking got, biased or not.
If I were in a bar in greater Manchester & started winding up Neville or any other cunt in that manner I'd expect a good kicking.
[/quote]
fucking hell now that's an idea!!!!
If you fancy it gis a shout i'll be there to back you up!!
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35412.msg930692#msg930692 date=1251033340]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930686#msg930686 date=1251032896]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
One of the Omagh bombers was found not guilty of the bombing yet also lost a civil case in damages to the families of the vicitims.
Different standards of proof are involved.
[/quote]
The Manc probably thinks he can do an OJ.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=35412.msg930686#msg930686 date=1251032896]
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=35412.msg930684#msg930684 date=1251032724]
What is?
[/quote]
The courts verdict not effecting someone being able to sue. It's illogical.
If they're found innocent, they've done nothing wrong, therefore why should they have to pay for doing something wrong. It's been proven they havent done it already.
Why should you have to have it proven twice? If a court of law says you've done fuck all then that should be the end of it.
[/quote]
One of the Omagh bombers was found not guilty of the bombing yet also lost a civil case in damages to the families of the vicitims.
Different standards of proof are involved.
[/quote]
The Manc probably thinks he can do an OJ.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35412.msg930700#msg930700 date=1251034231]
Two different questions are essentially being asked, regarding the same incident. One has already been answered in the criminal case.
The civil case will be a Tort case so the court will probably look at the following :
1. Did Gerrard owe the Manc a duty of care ?
2. Was that duty of care breached ?
3. Did damages arise from that breach of duty ?
It'll probably cost Gerrard a few quid, less than half a weeks wages.
[/quote]
Again, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, I probably am.
Why would Stevie owe the manc 'a duty of care'? He wasnt in his employment, nor did Gerrard have any responsibility over or for him in that situation. They were simply strangers in a bar.
That aside for one moment, if said breach occurred due to provocation then surely any 'damages' (I assume that means his 'dental work & recompense for emotional..etc etc') would be rendered null & void anyway? Or does that simply not matter in this case?
Again, I'm probably missing something, or misunderstanding something.
To clarify a little, ignoring this specific case, if man A attacked man B in the street, & man B hit him & broke his nose whilst trying to fight him off, could man A then sue man B for his injuries?
Apologies if I'm being pedantic, I just really am a little baffled how this could be the case. I knew the OJ happened, but assumed that's only cos anyone can sue for any bleeding thing in the US, & usually do, as their compensation culture is mental.
Two different questions are essentially being asked, regarding the same incident. One has already been answered in the criminal case.
The civil case will be a Tort case so the court will probably look at the following :
1. Did Gerrard owe the Manc a duty of care ?
2. Was that duty of care breached ?
3. Did damages arise from that breach of duty ?
It'll probably cost Gerrard a few quid, less than half a weeks wages.
[/quote]
Again, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, I probably am.
Why would Stevie owe the manc 'a duty of care'? He wasnt in his employment, nor did Gerrard have any responsibility over or for him in that situation. They were simply strangers in a bar.
That aside for one moment, if said breach occurred due to provocation then surely any 'damages' (I assume that means his 'dental work & recompense for emotional..etc etc') would be rendered null & void anyway? Or does that simply not matter in this case?
Again, I'm probably missing something, or misunderstanding something.
To clarify a little, ignoring this specific case, if man A attacked man B in the street, & man B hit him & broke his nose whilst trying to fight him off, could man A then sue man B for his injuries?
Apologies if I'm being pedantic, I just really am a little baffled how this could be the case. I knew the OJ happened, but assumed that's only cos anyone can sue for any bleeding thing in the US, & usually do, as their compensation culture is mental.
- Status
