MLB wants Dodgers(Ohtani) vs Yankees(Judge) - NFL/Goodell helped the Chiefs

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Some people, usually those with lots of money and power, have more protections then others.

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent, and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No exceptions?

Justice can be perverted, and is on a regular basis... and likely very few on here will even agree on the way it's been perverted, or who the alleged "perverts" actually are, given the individual circumstances, but most will agree... it's most definitely been perverted.

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

hahahahahaha!!!!


......and T Swift.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent....

Yes, clearly. The logic is inescapable. A man IS innocent until and unless convicted in an unbiased court of law.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No exceptions?

How can there be? The logic is inescapable.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

...and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No I do not! And that's what frightens me and why I refuse to countenance any undermining of the principle. Despite the principle, there are far too many cases of the innocent being convicted and punished. I could name you several horrifying examples in relatively recent history in my own provincial jurisdiction alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court. Using the term to mean, did he do it or not, obviously many guilty people go free. Now that may be a price worth paying for the type of justice system we want, but denying that it happens makes no sense.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court.

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

[packs]

A courtroom verdict is the opinion of the jury. It is true that a person found innocent or guilty was found innocent or guilty. It is also true that the jury's opinion does not establish fact or actual guilt or innocence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

I haven't set foot in Ohio in decades LOL. And you clearly do not understand the legal system. That the state may not be able to persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, with admissible evidence, that a defendant is guilty does not mean they did not commit the crime. Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant to be found not guilty by a criminal jury but then to be found liable for the same act by a civil jury.

Again, if you DEFINE innocent as not found guilty, then sure you're right, but that is completely circular.

[Balticfox]

So I see/hear that Taylor Swift was roundly booed at the Superdome this evening. Maybe ticket buyers actually listened to some of her recordings prior to the game....

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And you clearly do not understand the legal system.

Excuse me but I understand it very well. The State bloody well better be able to PROVE its case against me or I walk. And that's the way it absolutely, positively should be. No ifs, ands or buts. But for whatever reason you don't seem to wholly embrace the principle.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, if you DEFINE innocent as not found guilty, then sure you're right, but that is completely circular.

What the hell? That's also the way it's defined under the law. Why are you ignoring this key detail? To me that's an all-important detail since it's there for my protection.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That the state may not be able to persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, with admissible evidence, that a defendant is guilty does not mean they did not commit the crime.

So bloody what? Unbelievable how you still insist on missing the point. I don't CARE if whoever/whatever did something and is not convicted. That's the price I'm willing to pay to continue living in a free society where we can't be cavalierly prosecuted and jailed by the State.

You say that you're a lawyer yet you've not heard of Blackstone's Formulation? I don't agree with Blackstone's ratio though. Rather than 10:1 it should be 100,000:1.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant to be found not guilty by a criminal jury but then to be found liable for the same act by a civil jury.

Yeah, well I have real problems with those civil juries. Is that how you earn your living or something? Is that why you're so intent on eroding the protections we all enjoy under our system of jurisprudence? Are you simply a Deep State fascist?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I haven't set foot in Ohio in decades LOL.

Just an accident of geography then. If you don't unequivocally embrace the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless proven guilty in an objective court of law, you should be disbarred (if you're indeed a lawyer) wherever you practice.