Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

I am sure he took some liberties dramatizing some of the scenes, but not with the basic facts. The scene of the legendary Texas ranger Frank Hamer (Bonnie and Clyde) walking through that Texas hill town where a key part of the fraud took place is priceless. So is the scene where Abe Fortas comes up with the strategy to stop the investigation.

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ.

Great book and series, I just hope Caro lives long enough to finish it. He'll be 89 at the end of the month, and makes George RR Martin look fast-paced; Martin at least has churned out five ASOIAF books in 33 years. Caro has been working on The Years of Lyndon Johnson for 50 years now, and has written four books, the most recent one coming out 12 years ago.

[irv]

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by irv

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

Yes, that was me. See above.

Moreover as another Canadian I'm appalled that your first examples of the miscarriage of justice don't include the cases of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. It's their cases among others that should give us nightmares. And no, those "other" cases don't include that of O.J. Simpson.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, that was me. See above.

Moreover as another Canadian I'm appalled that your first examples of the miscarriage of justice don't include the cases of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. It's their cases among others that should give us nightmares. And no, those "other" cases don't include that of O.J. Simpson.

I hope you're going to be OK?

And, are we not talking about O.J. here, or should I have brought up all such cases from centuries of litigation?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by irv

I hope you're going to be OK?

I'm strong, healthy and snarly, i.e. a classic curmudgeon. And hoping to stay that way for many more years!

Incidentally, are you a big time CFL fan and collector? Or are you merely an American sycophant?

Originally Posted by irv

And, are we not talking about O.J. here....

This thread is actually about Lebron James. For whatever arcane reason, another poster inserted O.J. Simpson into the discussion.

Originally Posted by irv

...or should I have brought up all such cases from centuries of litigation?

Bringing up a few 21st century miscarriages of justice from our home jurisdiction would have been enough.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence....

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

This makes no sense from a moral perspective. If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent? The legal system has huge limitations in terms of its ability to identify much less convict the guilty. Rightly so, because the alternative is much worse, but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Class actions subject to CAFA are a tiny, tiny percentage of cases. I assure you there is no "general" problem with forum shopping in US civil litigation.

[G1911]

Assuming the government is 100% correct 100% of the time is the most big brother thing of all. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, and sometimes guilty people are not and frequently the crime is never charged at all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Assuming the government is 100% correct 100% of the time is the most big brother thing of all. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, and sometimes guilty people are not and frequently the crime is never charged at all.

The burden of proof is very high, the rules of evidence are onerous, and the defendant doesn't have to testify. That the prosecution does not convict someone does not mean they are "innocent" of the crime.

[packs]

I don’t think the burden of proof is that high. It’s supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but doubt is subjective and a highly individual emotion.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This makes no sense from a moral perspective.

I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.

My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".

See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit (despite the timeline of events) because he was "weird". He played the clarinet and he just wasn't a "regular" guy. So one of the things they did was induce another prisoner to lie him up (give false testimony against Morin). And was compensation for Morin then taken out of the "investigating" officers hide? No, it was taken out of the taxpayers' hide instead.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent?

Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law."

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.

Hmmmpphhhffff! My position is that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law. Case closed.

You on the other hand seem determined to explore nuances in the meaning of the word "innocent". In so doing you're simply acting as the handmaiden of those who would happily undermine the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And let me point out that this principle is one of the very few bulwarks we the citizenry have against the overriding power of the State and one that all freedom loving individuals must fight to protect.

[John1941]

[QUOTE=Balticfox;2469527 Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law." [/QUOTE]

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction. Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

To reply to your charges of us being handmaidens of dystopia: My personal sympathies lean towards anarchism/libertarianism - limited government, at the very least - not some state-uber-alles society. I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says. It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction. Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

To reply to your charges of us being handmaidens of dystopia: My personal sympathies lean towards anarchism/libertarianism - limited government, at the very least - not some state-uber-alles society. I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says. It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.

Baltic's position is circular. If innocent MEANS not convicted, then of course you're innocent until convicted. But the overwhelming majority of people would not so define it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.

My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".

See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit

One of the crooked cops, (Durham Regional Police) lived in a house I used to pass everyday on my way to high school.
He mysteriously got sick when he was called upon to testify about the doctoring of notes and evidence and did not appear.

The old saying, "the apple does not fall far from the tree", holds true here as his son was, and still most likely is, a complete and utter imbecile. (Goof is a much better word) When he was in grade 12, him, (he was with a couple of his friends) threw one of my friends, (the smallest one, of course, who was in grade 9), into the creek on his way to school in the winter.
Unbeknownst to him, one of my other friends was fairly tough and not afraid of much of anything so he tuned him up, and tuned him up good.
Of course word got around school about a grade 9 student beating up a grade 12 student and magically his attendance plummeted after that.