Proximate Cause

[AProudLefty]

n law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened.[1] (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.) The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective (see But-for test). Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

Sine qua non (/ˌsaɪni kweɪ ˈnɒn, ˌsɪni kwɑː ˈnoʊn/,[1] Latin: [ˈsɪnɛ kʷaː ˈnoːn]) or condicio sine qua non (plural: condicio sine quibus non) is an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing". "Sine qua non causation" is the formal terminology for "but-for causation".

Foreseeability
The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.

This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.

Direct causation
Direct causation is a minority test, which addresses only the metaphysical concept of causation.[7] It does not matter how foreseeable the result as long as what the negligent party's physical activity can be tied to what actually happened. The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm. An intervening cause has several requirements: it must 1) be independent of the original act, 2) be a voluntary human act or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur in time between the original act and the harm.

Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

[AProudLefty]

That's a good discussion, isn't it?

Do people directly or indirectly cause things?

If I had not run the red light, would the accident have been averted?

[Lightbringer]

Wikipedia, the refuge of idiots.

[AProudLefty]

Wikipedia, the refuge of idiots.

To quote Legion: "Genetic fallacy".

[Lightbringer]

To quote Legion: "Genetic fallacy".

Legina is wrong about a lot of shit. You just did the same shit evince does.

[AProudLefty]

Legina is wrong about a lot of shit. You just did the same shit evince does.

What did evince do?

[Lightbringer]

What did evince do?

The same shit you do.

Now, to get back to you, what point exactly are you trying to argue?

[AProudLefty]

The same shit you do.

Now, to get back to you, what point exactly are you trying to argue?

The point is the question of Trump directly or indirectly causing the "insurrection".

[Lightbringer]

The point is the question of Trump directly or indirectly causing the "insurrection".

And your go-to source was wikipedia?

The thing that needs to be determined here is if there was an "insurrection" at all.

[AProudLefty]

The thing that needs to be determined here is if there was an "insurrection" at all.

Uh uh. Now you're getting it.

[Lightbringer]

Uh uh. Now you're getting it.

At least one of us is.

[AProudLefty]

At least one of us is.

So when?

[serenity]

That's a good discussion, isn't it?

Do people directly or indirectly cause things?

If I had not run the red light, would the accident have been averted?

both intentionally and subliminally through persuasion of power programmed into a person's evolved point of origin mutually evolving so far. take your idea and amplify it to biology eternally separates the populaiton changing form as shaped since inception of the species. That makes this moment eternity and eternal separation of each ancestor is the fertilized cell that evolves into the brain of the body born to replace those made the conception happen.

Kinetically speaking with this method, there cannot be missing links in evolving so far. therefore all the doubt created in context is means of misleading the misled so far. Those that know, don't tell and those not telling teach everyone else to project life is something more than mutually evolving now. Wonder where power, wealth, an fame come from, said sarcastically.

Get the sense humanity is organized crime practiced ancestrally so far yet? Isn't a reality not doing it so far. One nation tried but that started being walked back intellectually 16 months after its original Constitution was ratified sept 1789 to 10 amendments 16 months later jan 1791 that started retraining the ancestries of those founding it to go back to old world order it reached in 2020.

[domer76]

That's a good discussion, isn't it?

Do people directly or indirectly cause things?

If I had not run the red light, would the accident have been averted?

Sicknick and the assault with bear spray?

[AProudLefty]

Sicknick and the assault with bear spray?

Oh yeah that would be a good example.