I pit the Texas Supreme Court (so what else is new?)

[Saint_Cad]

@Boyo Jim

The Texas Supreme Court doesn’t review criminal cases? Who or what does? You got a cite for that?

This was an important part of the Roe v Wade oral arguements (especially the first ones) in front of SCOTUS

[aldiboronti]

Don’t know if I’ve said this before, but it bears saying again. Bricker, your posts are invaluable for sorting the wood from the trees.

[Bricker]

@aldiboronti

Don’t know if I’ve said this before, but it bears saying again. Bricker, your posts are invaluable for sorting the wood from the trees.

Thanks for the kind words! I try…

[drachillix]

@Bricker

There’s no question that their conduct was tortious.

The question is – how much was she damaged by it?

Any damages that she sustained because she was told she was demon-ridden are not recoverable. Her attorneys should have emphasized in their arguments, and evidence, the anguish and distress that she felt from the physical restraint, but they did not.

As an anology, might it be like a doctor telling you you have a terminal and communicable disease lets say HIV/AIDS, your spouse leaves you, your friends become distant, you lose your job because nobody will work closesly with the “diseased” person.

Then the doc calls back and tells you six months later that there was a mistake on a test or a misinterpretation of a result.

Granted medical malpractice is a little better defined, but in the hearts of those involved a demon is a real thing.

[Bricker]

@drachillix

As an anology, might it be like a doctor telling you you have a terminal and communicable disease lets say HIV/AIDS, your spouse leaves you, your friends become distant, you lose your job because nobody will work closesly with the “diseased” person.

Then the doc calls back and tells you six months later that there was a mistake on a test or a misinterpretation of a result.

Granted medical malpractice is a little better defined, but in the hearts of those involved a demon is a real thing.

Sure.

The difference is that, as a society, we can agree that there’s a certain standard for how to tell if the HIV virus is present, and independent observers can verify, or refute, the doctor’s claim that he did everything right in arriving at his diagnosis.

When a church reaches a judgment that you have a demon, however, there’s no way to confirm that, no independent test to verify or refute the presence of the demon. Moreover, we cannot tell a church, “Don’t tell people they have demons.”

[Oy]

My question seems to have gotten lost here, so I’ll repeat it. Bricker:

Did “there’s no question their conduct was tortious” mean it was a tort or that is was not a tort? I’m simple minded, and I don’t know the law at all. I’m sorry for imposing.

[Moriarty]

@Oy!

My question seems to have gotten lost here, so I’ll repeat it. Bricker:

Did “there’s no question their conduct was tortious” mean it was a tort or that is was not a tort? I’m simple minded, and I don’t know the law at all. I’m sorry for imposing.

Bricker is saying (accurately, I believe) that it is obvious a tort was commited (battery and/or false imprisonment). The issue, though, is how much damage was caused by that tort. The church is relying on their freedom of religion to eliminate any claims of damage for the beliefs they espoused (i.e. demon possession), which means that the recoverable damages are limited to the minor bruising which arose from being physically restrained.

[Bricker]

@Atomicktom

Bricker is saying (accurately, I believe) that it is obvious a tort was commited (battery and/or false imprisonment). The issue, though, is how much damage was caused by that tort. The church is relying on their freedom of religion to eliminate any claims of damage for the beliefs they espoused (i.e. demon possession), which means that the recoverable damages are limited to the minor bruising which arose from being physically restrained.

Yup.

[Oy]

Ah. Thank you.