edblysard Goodness, the movies have done such a disservice with that phrase, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not what the law requires. “Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used. If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.” Source, Wikipedia and the last State Judge I sat in a jury panel for. What is required is that a case be presented in such a manner that any reasonable person would have no doubt that the crime as presented/outlined has been committed, and that the person charged is guilty of said crime. The state, (prosecution) has to prove its case, the defendant is not required to do a thing. Under our laws, if the state cannot or does not prove its case, regardless if you, as a jurist think and feel the guy is guilty, the law requires you to return a not guilty verdict. On the other hand, if the state can prove its case, and you, as a “reasonable person” think the facts presented shows guilt of the defendant of the crime(s) as charged, then a guilty verdict is required to be returned.
Goodness, the movies have done such a disservice with that phrase, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not what the law requires.
“Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
"The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.”
Source, Wikipedia and the last State Judge I sat in a jury panel for.
What is required is that a case be presented in such a manner that any reasonable person would have no doubt that the crime as presented/outlined has been committed, and that the person charged is guilty of said crime.
The state, (prosecution) has to prove its case, the defendant is not required to do a thing.
Under our laws, if the state cannot or does not prove its case, regardless if you, as a jurist think and feel the guy is guilty, the law requires you to return a not guilty verdict.
On the other hand, if the state can prove its case, and you, as a “reasonable person” think the facts presented shows guilt of the defendant of the crime(s) as charged, then a guilty verdict is required to be returned.
What is at stake at this point is not whether Miller committed the crime of trespass. It is whether a crime of trespass was committed.
According to this source, a person must know they are entering another person's property without permission in order to be guilty of the crime of trespass:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
From the link:
Trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts.
Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass. In a tort action, the plaintiff must prove that the offender had, but knowingly violated, a legal duty to respect another person’s right to property, which resulted in direct injury or loss to the plaintiff.
Even though CSX denied Miller permission to film on their property, Miller may not have known he was on CSX property. He may not have gotten the email, or read it, or understood where CSX property was. Or he may have thought he had sufficient permission from Rayonier to enter CSX property.
Now I am confused. You put a bed on train tracks that are not owned by a business that may have given you permission to be on their tracks....the train runs over you....and you may not be guilty of tresspassing. (I need to take this slowly, because I think in sound bites. So a little at a time.)
This seems to take any responsibility off this Miller. He has none whatsoever? Isn't this akin to lying in the street on a dark and rainy night and a car hits you. But the driver is charged and not the person getting hit because he was incredibly drunk at the time and didn't know what he was doing? (he was injured and survived)
This leaves the driver of the car and possibly the city (for a whole host of reasons) as the parties causing the damage and the drunk totally blameless and probably clueless. AND leaves the driver of the car open to having to pay medical on the drunk.
Now as to whether to bring charges, drunk walking is public intox (tresspassing is being on property w/o permission) Maybe criminal, albeit if there were any more than minor consequences. If the car had run up on a sidewalk and hit a pedestrian - sounds like m v homicide at the very least. A criminal prosecution.
The film crew, through their negligence, killed a member. The train was not out of place. The railroad was doing business. The train crew was doing their job. Yet a film crew person died. If they had tied her to the rails and the train ran over her, would that make any difference in criminal charges?
Something caused the death of this young lady. She didn't die of natural causes. Ergo, I would think someone should be held liable in her death. Even if some unknown person granted permission, someone should be charged in her death. I just don't see it being the railroad.
Civil suits galore would be another whole subject.
I am more inclined to think the prosecution is taking their time to be sure they charge all of the people that should be charged and have all their ducks in order before taking this to court. And include a definite review if all protocol was followed on the side of the railroad. I doubt there is much more the railroad could do beside put a flagman on the bridge 24/7. Whether or not they gave permission, to me, is a moot point since most railroads post no tresspassing signs around their property when they think citizens may...tresspass.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie,
I know it seems surprising, and I would not predict how it will go. But it depends on the circumstances of the act. Say a person went out and entered railroad property and hopped a train. Say there were no signs warning about trespassing. It could be reasonably argued that the person had to know it was not his property, and it must belong to the railroad built upon it. The fact that the person hopped the train would indicate a conscious intent to enter upon the property as opposed to just wandering onto it without thinking about it. It seems to me that this would qualify as trespass because the person knew he was trespassing.
Now, Miller also entered railroad property and it would likewise seem obvious that he knew he was trespassing, just as the example of the person hopping the train. But the difference with Miller’s case is that he had sought permission from Rayonier, and could have easily believed that the permission extended to the trestle.
It may seem farfetched to us, but is it really when you consider that Miller knew nothing about who owned what? He might not have given it much thought. I don’t know how much rail trackage Rayonier has on their property, but they might have quite a bit. Rayonier people may have told Miller that he could film on the trestle, and Miller might have assumed that Rayonier had that authority. It makes no difference whether any of the interpretation was correct or not. All that matters is that it might have led to Miller mistakenly believing he had permission. And if he believed that, he could not have known that he did not have permission. Therefore, according to the definition of trespass, he did not trespass.
OK - several things come to mind: And I don't know the answers. How does the railroad mark the property on a bridge/trestle? Do they put the name of the railroad and no tresspassing on the ends of these?
I understand the confusion on whose bridge/trestle, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
And if like the train hopper, who would most likely wait for the train to really slow down or stop, by then the train is around property that is most likely marked with tresspassing signs. I just have to believe that the bridge/trestle was marked somewhere.
I live in a fair sized city and tracks all through town are marked, marked, marked. And the rural isn't that far away and the crossings, bridges, any place someone could unthinkingly walk are marked BNSF No Tresspassing.
Bedtime. To be continued.
Question::: Every CSX bridge that I have seen has 2 "no trespassing CSX Railroad "signs one on each side of the track. They are always on each end of the bridge. So a total of 4 signs. Were these signs there or maybe removed for cinematic license ? ?
What the prosecution has to show is that any “reasonable person” would view being on a train track/trestle was inherently dangerous, and bring into question if “reasonable” precautions were taken to insure the safety of the film crew.
Mr. Millers statement that “I don’t do permits” in no way absolves him of responsibility, in the same manner that “We were just following orders “didn’t absolve the Nazis of their guilt.
Ignorance of what tracks or what property he was allowed to use doesn’t work either.
That’s like saying I can walk into your home, sit down and eat your dinner and sleep in your bed, all because I didn’t know I couldn’t.
As the person making the decision to film on the trestle, the moment he made that decision, responsibility rested on him to make sure, absolutely sure that they had permission to be there, use the trestle, and had look outs placed in such a manner that ample warning would be afforded the crew.
Assuming you are so important that making sure your employees are working in a safe environment is somehow beneath you or is somehow not your responsibility isn’t a good excuse either.
23 17 46 11
According to the definition I posted above:
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission.
What I have concluded about a person not trespassing because they believe they have permission centers around the word, knowingly in the definition sentence. But I have decided to draw no conclusions on this matter because I do not trust the definition. There are many definitions of trespass, and they are all differently worded. Most do not contain the word, knowingly.
But even if you accept the definition sentence as valid, it is flawed with ambiguity. In that sentence, knowingly can apply to two different conditions that establish trespass:
1) The condition of knowing that you are entering someone else’s property.
2) The condition of knowing that you don’t have permission to enter someone else’s property.
The ambiguity is that the sentence does not clarify whether the second condition applies or just the first one. It is obvious that the first condition applies, but there is no way to know whether the second condition also applies. And dependent on that choice, the meaning of the sentence changes. The two meanings conflict with each other.
EXAMPLE:
A person owns two parcels of land called parcel A and parcel B. Both parcels are posted with no trespassing signs.
The owner gives another person to permission to enter parcel A.
The person intending to enter parcel A mistakenly enters parcel B.
If condition #1 applies and condition #2 does not apply, then the person is trespassing.
If both condition #1 and #2 apply, then the person is not trespassing.
Either meaning could be valid, but you cannot have both meanings in the sentence because they conflict with each other. Therefore, in my opinion, the reference to that definition of trespass is bogus.
E: I'm a little dizzy after reading the above, but have one comment: your example uses one owner.
in this case there were two.
It is a little dizzying. I had to read that definition sentence many times before I could parse the meaning. But I am convinced that my explanation of the problem is airtight. The problem with the sentence is the kind of thing that could have caused train collisions back in the days of writing train orders to control trains. The words had to latch together with the single-meaning logic of an interlocking plant. If the language inadvertently produced two conflicting meanings, it was called a “lap up” and it authorized two trains to occupy the same space at the same time.
In my example, I used one owner and two parcels. In the Georgia case, there are two owners and two parcels. Either way, the analogy works because the point is that the person entering the parcels can do so without knowing that they don’t have permission if they believe they do have permission. And this misunderstanding can arise from various means such as receiving permission, but entering the wrong property, or receiving permission from the wrong owner.
Regarding the flawed sentence, I would write it in either of the two following ways, depending on which meaning it is to have:
Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission, and knowing that you are entering that property.
Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission while knowing that you are entering that property, and knowing that you do not have permission to do so.
But in this particular case, #1 would apply since Csx would have the bridges marked.
Either definition says no permission, no go!
And you still have ignorance of the law -no excuse. Belief in this case will probably not pass muster..
My "real"puter is upstairs. Forgive the disjointed thoughts..
Mookie Either definition says no permission, no go!
Only the first definition says that. The second one says “go” even without permission.
Regarding my second version of the possible definition above:
“Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission while knowing that you are entering that property, and knowing that you do not have permission to do so.”
That is the second meaning of the two meanings I see in the original definition sentence. It requires “knowing that you do not have permission” in order to constitute trespass. It is impossible to know you don’t have permission if you believe you do have permission. So that hinges on the credibility of the person’s claim of believing he had permission. In Miller’s case, that credibility seems quite high.
But, as I say, I do not know which of the two different and conflicting meanings of the trespass definitions are correct.
According to what Falcon48 said on page 2, the meaning of my sentence version above would be the correct meaning. He said this:
“In order to find the any of the film people guilty of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway…”
Got it. I would not think it would be difficult to prove - given all the circumstances I described before. I get the feeling that the film crew - or at least the most in charge of the film crew were a little lazy when it came to "details".
It would be interesting to hear the whole story about how this played out. Their first inclination must have been to go to Rayonier to ask for permission because Rayonier had a gate that needed to be opened for access.
https://www.shootonline.com/news/director-randall-miller-testifies-about-midnight-rider-fatal-crash
Did someone on the film crew tell Rayonier that they were planning on using the bridge? If so, did Rayonier tell them that the bridge was CSX property?
Did the film crew tell CSX they had permission from Rayonier, and did they tell CSX where they were planning to film? If so, did CSX send the film crew information on who owned what?
Did Rayonier have a person escort the film crew? If so, why didn't that person tell the film crew the bridge was CSX property? Did the film crew ignore the person? If Raynoier didn't have a person escorting the film crew, why? Did Raynoier tell what was there property and what was owned by CSX? Or did Rayonier just gave the film crew an area that they wandered out of?
There are still many more questions.
Those are good questions. There were three different organizations communicating with each other, and it probably involved more than one person from each organization. It will be interesting to learn the decision about criminal charges, and who they will apply to if they are made.
Greg Allman dropped the suit against the director, Miller. They reached an out-of-court settlement to make the legal proceedings moot. No indication of whether the film will continue. We will have to wait to see if criminal charges are brought to see if any more evidence surfaces.
Allman Drops Suit
I don’t know anything about Gregg Allman, but I have to wonder about his dream about a hospital bed on the tracks. It must have been a powerful dream for him to have made it a part of his memoirs. Dreams are often thought to have meaning to the life of the dreamer.
It would seem to me that a dream about a bed on a railroad track on a high trestle would symbolize great risk and danger. It would imply sleeping in a bed on the tracks, which would suggest being unaware of the danger.
Dreams of foreboding are of often believed to be premonitions. It is as if a dream premonition of doom might be a warning to change course in real life, like a captain of a ship dreaming about hitting an iceberg.
We do know that Gregg Allman’s dream was so significant to him that he chose to make a movie about it. And that decision took the dream into a physical manifestation that played out a tremendous misfortune. I don’t know what happened in his actual dream, but the great risk and danger implied in the dream certainly led to its logical conclusion in reality.
Euclid I don’t know anything about Gregg Allman, but I have to wonder about his dream about a hospital bed on the tracks. It must have been a powerful dream for him to have made it a part of his memoirs. Dreams are often thought to have meaning to the life of the dreamer. It would seem to me that a dream about a bed on a railroad track on a high trestle would symbolize great risk and danger. It would imply sleeping in a bed on the tracks, which would suggest being unaware of the danger. Dreams of foreboding are of often believed to be premonitions. It is as if a dream premonition of doom might be a warning to change course in real life, like a captain of a ship dreaming about hitting an iceberg. We do know that Gregg Allman’s dream was so significant to him that he chose to make a movie about it. And that decision took the dream into a physical manifestation that played out a tremendous misfortune. I don’t know what happened in his actual dream, but the great risk and danger implied in the dream certainly led to its logical conclusion in reality.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed?
Jeff
jeffhergert Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed? Jeff
A rather unsubtle slur directed toward Brotherhood members.
CSSHEGEWISCH jeffhergert Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed? Jeff A rather unsubtle slur directed toward Brotherhood members.
by a Brotherhood member.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don’t think anybody will escape justice, but one has to analyze one’s expectations to see if they are realistic about what justice should be.
I don’t think Miller was being flippant when he said he does not do the permits. I think he sincerely meant that he had other people that dealt with that responsibility. He may be the top guy, but that does not mean that he is legally responsible for any act of criminal negligence by his underlings. And the people who were supposed to get permits could have made a mistake.
People make mistakes. Does that make them a criminal?
ACYYou're right, Euclid. Another quote from Miller was "I don't do permits," and that is the quote I should have put in there. I find it exceedingly interesting that the role of the Locations staff has been so much ignored in this discussion, and I'm sure it will be very important in any legal action. In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results.
Whether Miller 'does permits' or not; it is his responsibility to KNOW that the proper permits are in place before 'doing his thing'.
Old but true saying in Dispatching - 'Protect, then authorize!.
In the instance of this accident, Miller authorized without having protection in place.
Euclid People make mistakes. Does that make them a criminal?
The answer is "It depends". If it can be shown that the person who made the mistake was behaving recklessly, then that person could face criminal charges, especially if the person in question has a history of reckless behavior.
There's also the issue of "corporate culture" where the "Thou shall not question the director" really pins the issue of liability on the director.
- Erik
P.S. The 2003 "Cedar Fire" in San Diego County was started by a lost hunter who built a signal fire. He did face criminal charges for that as quite a few people died in the the resulting fire. Paralleling the case discussed in this thread, there were many people (primarily those who did not grow up in southern California) who thought it was an innocent mistake, and many people who were ready to "hang him" as starting a fire in the back country when a Santa Ana condition is forecast is asking for a disaster.
Erik,
I think it does depend, as you say, but there seems to be a widespread, contrary belief that the matter of having permission is black and white. Either you have it or you don’t, so there is no room for excuses such as making a mistake.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.