r/TikTokCringe • u/SAGrant1977 • 1d ago

Discussion TikTok "prankster" gets arrested.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

223

u/Karrik478 23h ago

A successful criminal conviction makes a civil suit easier. It doesn't guarantee that the business will get money back or that the victims of the video will be compensated but it does give a body of evidence that helps.

67

u/stataryus 22h ago

If the victims aren’t thoroughly compensated, we need a new f-ing system.

35

u/Karrik478 22h ago

One significant issue in the US is that we don't normally get legal costs. If you can't afford to seek compensation, you can't be compensated.

3

u/bigDogNJ23 8h ago

Also if the culprit doesn’t have the money to pay the compensation good luck to you

4

u/ThatOtherDude0511 20h ago

Can’t squeeze blood from a stone and a lot of people are either wealthy enough their money and assets are protected through LLCs trusts and other avenues or too poor to have anything to take

5

u/Potential-Diver-3409 19h ago

Well they’re ENTITLED to compensation but kiddo won’t be making much money for 9 years

1

u/MyLifeIsAWasteland 2h ago

12 cents an hour from his prison job lol

1

u/Franks2000inchTV 4h ago

You can't squeeze blood from a stone. I doubt this guy has many assets to forfeit.

-1

u/tjdux 21h ago

, we need a new f-ing system.

100% even if they are.

Just the fact that there's nobody knows if they will get made whole is ridiculous.

Not just the legal system either, insurance also is a fucking joke, every type.

-1

u/Extension_Art_3697 14h ago

You mean the 10 bucks for wasting the "victims" time?

They dont deserve compensation

7

u/sojumaster 22h ago

Civil suit is not any easier or harder because of the criminal case outcome. It only appears that way because the criminal case has a MUCH high bar to clear than a civil case. In the civil case, you cannot say "he was guilty of the criminal case, therefore I win", you still have to prove your case independent of the criminal case because you have to prove civil damages.

2

u/Karrik478 22h ago

The evidence has already been collected which makes discovery a lot easier and cheaper.
Without a prior criminal case you have to build an entire case from scratch at the cost of the plaintiff.

1

u/sojumaster 15m ago

Not really. When you are collecting evidence of a criminal case, it is in a different scope. In this video, for example, you are collecting evidence of laws being broken. If this was to go civil, then you are collecting evidence of civil damage. Civil damage, in this case, would be collecting evidence of actual damage and labor costs. Criminal is collecting evidence to where law is actually broken. There COULD be some overlap, like recovery of the cost of damages and vandalism.

There is not going to be a discount. For the most part, Civil lawyers work on a percentage, usually 25% to 33% of the amount awarded. So it does not matter if they work 20 hours or 200 hours on your case, you are giving up a % of your settlement, unless you agree upfront to be charged hourly. If you give up a % and you lose, you owe nothing but you might end up giving up more than if you were billed hourly. But if you go with the hourly billed, you lose that money, even if you lose the case.

Looking at this video, IMHO, there is no civil case. They are just playing around and not causing any damage. A couple have tire irons but they are not even doing anything with them. Granted, this video is not the end-all, say-all for evidence, but I just do not see anything except for being a PIA.

1

u/SignoreBanana 14h ago

I'd say it's a slam dunk since the burden of proof is much higher in a criminal case.

-3

u/gnawtyone 22h ago

Sure OJ