Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

George Zimmerman Back With Girlfriend *

inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:58:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The one who claimed that he was going to shoot her while they were arguing. So this is obviously the mindset of an abusive lover. She has dropped the charges simply because she doesnt want to deal with the trouble of letting him go and having him locked up for good. So Zimmerman is out of jail now with no charges behind. What do you think DDO.

http://abcnews.go.com...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

Killing an unarmed teen and getting away with it kind of makes you a celebrity.
The issue is, this guy appears to be a douche and probably is more culpable for the death of Martin than he lets on.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:58:29 PM, inferno wrote:
The one who claimed that he was going to shoot her while they were arguing. So this is obviously the mindset of an abusive lover. She has dropped the charges simply because she doesnt want to deal with the trouble of letting him go and having him locked up for good. So Zimmerman is out of jail now with no charges behind. What do you think DDO.

http://abcnews.go.com...

My thoughts:
Predictable.

However, you are assuming she is abused. One bad fight does not a monster make.
Perhaps the context of the fight was later understood.

For example, I don't know if this applies but, if my girlfriend wanted me to forget my kids from another woman because the stress of the ex is too much, I would be pissed.
Now, if she burnt the dinner and this was his reaction, that is another story.
My work here is, finally, done.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:49:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:15:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

The issue is, this guy appears to be a douche and probably is more culpable for the death of Martin than he lets on.

Got any proof of that? The way it seems to me is Martin jumped Zimmerman without any reason to do so, almost as soon as he got out of his car. If you had a gun and there was a man slamming your head into the concrete, are you gonna fire on him or not?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 11:55:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:49:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:15:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

The issue is, this guy appears to be a douche and probably is more culpable for the death of Martin than he lets on.

Got any proof of that? The way it seems to me is Martin jumped Zimmerman without any reason to do so, almost as soon as he got out of his car. If you had a gun and there was a man slamming your head into the concrete, are you gonna fire on him or not?

You are aware there was a chase, right?
The question is, when was the gun drawn?

The way it seems to me is Zimmerman confronted Martin (what are you doing here), Martin said piss off, Zimmerman insisted, Martin ran, Zimmerman chased, Martin got the drop on Zimmerman, Zimmerman shot.

Now, if Zimmerman was questioning Martin with a gun pointed at him, he doesn't get to cry self-defense. It would be like a black man purposefully walking into a KKK meeting at night.

The fact that Zimmerman is a douche tarnishes his credibility, just like Martin's "thuginess" tarnished his. It makes me wonder if Zimmerman escalated things.

(hey, what are you doing)
(piss off)
draws gun (no, really what are you doing here)
My work here is, finally, done.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Doesn't this belong in the TMZ forum?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 11:31:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

The jury find him not guilty, the jury's job is to seek and interpret the truth, justice is served through truth. Thereby justice has been served, GZ is not guilty.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 11:31:35 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

The jury find him not guilty, the jury's job is to seek and interpret the truth, justice is served through truth. Thereby justice has been served, GZ is not guilty.

So are you saying to the world abroad, that everyone who is found not guilty is innocent of a crime. =)
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 4:18:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:58:29 PM, inferno wrote:
The one who claimed that he was going to shoot her while they were arguing. So this is obviously the mindset of an abusive lover. She has dropped the charges simply because she doesnt want to deal with the trouble of letting him go and having him locked up for good. So Zimmerman is out of jail now with no charges behind. What do you think DDO.

http://abcnews.go.com...

My thoughts:
Predictable.

However, you are assuming she is abused. One bad fight does not a monster make.
Perhaps the context of the fight was later understood.

For example, I don't know if this applies but, if my girlfriend wanted me to forget my kids from another woman because the stress of the ex is too much, I would be pissed.
Now, if she burnt the dinner and this was his reaction, that is another story.

When someone threatens a police officer, beats their cousin, beats their ex wife, and then screams out loud and threatens his new girlfriend..............I think we know what kind of person that is kid. Youre not stupid. Are you? =)
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:14:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:12:01 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:31:35 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

The jury find him not guilty, the jury's job is to seek and interpret the truth, justice is served through truth. Thereby justice has been served, GZ is not guilty.

So are you saying to the world abroad, that everyone who is found not guilty is innocent of a crime. =)

You are innocent until proven guilty, aren't you? Thereby we would also assume to a greater extent you are innocent if you are proven not guilty

GZ was not proven guilty, thereby he is innocent.

Try again.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

Proven guilty ? Are you saying that the system is flawless ? Surely you are aware of all of the people who have been convicted wrongly of crimes, only to be released out of prison 20 years later and sue. =)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:14:46 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:12:01 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:31:35 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

The jury find him not guilty, the jury's job is to seek and interpret the truth, justice is served through truth. Thereby justice has been served, GZ is not guilty.

So are you saying to the world abroad, that everyone who is found not guilty is innocent of a crime. =)

You are innocent until proven guilty, aren't you? Thereby we would also assume to a greater extent you are innocent if you are proven not guilty

GZ was not proven guilty, thereby he is innocent.

Try again.

I didn't know that a man who confesses to a crime, but said confession is thrown out due to a bad search, is innocent...

This isn't the case of GZ, but it demonstrates the error of your logic.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:21:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

You are aware of the difference of being innocent in the eyes of the law, and actually being innocent, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:18:22 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

Proven guilty ? Are you saying that the system is flawless ? Surely you are aware of all of the people who have been convicted wrongly of crimes, only to be released out of prison 20 years later and sue. =)

I'm saying that it is up to the jury to analyze the evidence presented and decide the truth, the jury has analyzed the facts, no new facts that are relevant or significant have arisen since the case, thereby it still stands that GZ is not guilty, so the only thing partisan hacks like yourself can do is attempt a character assassination.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:19:26 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:14:46 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:12:01 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:31:35 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:10:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:14:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
He was let off not guilty bro, get over it. He's already been smeared enough, quit treating him like a celebrity and just let him live his life in privacy. IMO no one gives a crap about this anymore besides a few people who are desperate to say 'I told you so', just leave the guy be already.

No. He is guilty. And what idiots like yourself will never understand is that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

The jury find him not guilty, the jury's job is to seek and interpret the truth, justice is served through truth. Thereby justice has been served, GZ is not guilty.

So are you saying to the world abroad, that everyone who is found not guilty is innocent of a crime. =)

You are innocent until proven guilty, aren't you? Thereby we would also assume to a greater extent you are innocent if you are proven not guilty

GZ was not proven guilty, thereby he is innocent.

Try again.

I didn't know that a man who confesses to a crime, but said confession is thrown out due to a bad search, is innocent...

This isn't the case of GZ, but it demonstrates the error of your logic.

Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:21:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

You are aware of the difference of being innocent in the eyes of the law, and actually being innocent, right?

I am only concerned with innocence in the eyes of the law, as only the law can give the not innocent (i.e guilty) their due. Truth is hardly valued if it cannot be acted on.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:28:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:13:33 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2013 4:18:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:58:29 PM, inferno wrote:
The one who claimed that he was going to shoot her while they were arguing. So this is obviously the mindset of an abusive lover. She has dropped the charges simply because she doesnt want to deal with the trouble of letting him go and having him locked up for good. So Zimmerman is out of jail now with no charges behind. What do you think DDO.

http://abcnews.go.com...

My thoughts:
Predictable.

However, you are assuming she is abused. One bad fight does not a monster make.
Perhaps the context of the fight was later understood.

For example, I don't know if this applies but, if my girlfriend wanted me to forget my kids from another woman because the stress of the ex is too much, I would be pissed.
Now, if she burnt the dinner and this was his reaction, that is another story.

When someone threatens a police officer, beats their cousin, beats their ex wife, and then screams out loud and threatens his new girlfriend..............I think we know what kind of person that is kid. Youre not stupid. Are you? =)

That doesn't mean anything, right?
By that logic, a promiscuous woman couldn't possibly be raped.

All I am saying is that I am not surprised she dropped the charges.
My work here is, finally, done.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:28:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:21:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:18:22 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

Proven guilty ? Are you saying that the system is flawless ? Surely you are aware of all of the people who have been convicted wrongly of crimes, only to be released out of prison 20 years later and sue. =)

I'm saying that it is up to the jury to analyze the evidence presented and decide the truth, the jury has analyzed the facts, no new facts that are relevant or significant have arisen since the case, thereby it still stands that GZ is not guilty, so the only thing partisan hacks like yourself can do is attempt a character assassination.

The jury is flawed and so is the justice system. We saw how this worked out in the Casey Anthony trial. Surely a dumb f_ck like yourself have a quality we all share called common sense. The actions do not fit the words coming from George Zimmerman.
He is forever guilty in the eyes of many. And you cannot change that Jack. =)
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:28:38 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:21:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:18:22 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:16:04 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Innocence is assumed until one is proven not innocent, i.e guilty. GZ was not proven guilty or not innocent, therefore he is innocent.

any more questions?

Proven guilty ? Are you saying that the system is flawless ? Surely you are aware of all of the people who have been convicted wrongly of crimes, only to be released out of prison 20 years later and sue. =)

I'm saying that it is up to the jury to analyze the evidence presented and decide the truth, the jury has analyzed the facts, no new facts that are relevant or significant have arisen since the case, thereby it still stands that GZ is not guilty, so the only thing partisan hacks like yourself can do is attempt a character assassination.

The jury is flawed and so is the justice system.

I am not denying this, but since the jury is the interpreter and analyzer of fact, and only their opinion actually matters, as far as I'm concerned GZ is not guilty. Maybe the law(s) that allowed him to get off as not guilty were flawed, but the laws should then be changed, not the verdict.

We saw how this worked out in the Casey Anthony trial. Surely a dumb f_ck like yourself have a quality we all share called common sense. The actions do not fit the words coming from George Zimmerman.

I'm not claiming the adversarial justice system is perfect, but it's certainly better than an Inquisitorial system, or do you disagree?

He is forever guilty in the eyes of many. And you cannot change that Jack. =)

Even if 90% of people saw him as guilty, only the jury's opinion matters and can be acted upon.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?

Are you serious?
Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:39:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:33:41 PM, Objectivity wrote:

He is forever guilty in the eyes of many. And you cannot change that Jack. =)

Even if 90% of people saw him as guilty, only the jury's opinion matters and can be acted upon.

LOL
Why do the armed forces care about crimes that one is charged with in determining applicants for enlistment?
My work here is, finally, done.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?


Are you serious?

mhm

Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Sure, the Aristotelian definition of justice is "to each their own due", if the accused aren't given their due because of corrupt, vigilante, or stupid police then certainly the accused right's should be taken in to account and the confession should be discarded unless it's made again under more proper circumstances.

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Well since civil suits and at fault divorces require less evidence to be found at fault or a perpetrator of some sort of harmful act, the jury is simply analyzing the same evidence, but since the ramifications of truth and the definition of it are changed for the case, the truth becomes less rigid for penalties to be incurred.

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?

above

same evidence, different consequences for the truth and the definition slightly changed.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are guilty of a crime, this is the truth.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are at fault for a harmful act that may not be illegal or led to an illegal act.

what needs to be found for truth has changed in a civil suit vs. a traditional case.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:42:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:39:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:33:41 PM, Objectivity wrote:

He is forever guilty in the eyes of many. And you cannot change that Jack. =)

Even if 90% of people saw him as guilty, only the jury's opinion matters and can be acted upon.

LOL
Why do the armed forces care about crimes that one is charged with in determining applicants for enlistment?

what is=/=what should be.

they do it, it doesn't mean they should. i don't think they should.

innocent until proven guilty
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:48:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?


Are you serious?

mhm

Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Sure, the Aristotelian definition of justice is "to each their own due", if the accused aren't given their due because of corrupt, vigilante, or stupid police then certainly the accused right's should be taken in to account and the confession should be discarded unless it's made again under more proper circumstances.

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Well since civil suits and at fault divorces require less evidence to be found at fault or a perpetrator of some sort of harmful act, the jury is simply analyzing the same evidence, but since the ramifications of truth and the definition of it are changed for the case, the truth becomes less rigid for penalties to be incurred.

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?

above

same evidence, different consequences for the truth and the definition slightly changed.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are guilty of a crime, this is the truth.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are at fault for a harmful act that may not be illegal or led to an illegal act.

what needs to be found for truth has changed in a civil suit vs. a traditional case.

So, you can be innocent of an assault, and yet be guilty to the point to pay for damages of something you are innocent of?

Yep, innocent is innocent, and we should just let any jury verdict stand.
In fact, by your logic, any faulty guilty verdict that is overturned should not be allowed, right?

Truth is truth.
My work here is, finally, done.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:48:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?


Are you serious?

mhm

Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Sure, the Aristotelian definition of justice is "to each their own due", if the accused aren't given their due because of corrupt, vigilante, or stupid police then certainly the accused right's should be taken in to account and the confession should be discarded unless it's made again under more proper circumstances.

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Well since civil suits and at fault divorces require less evidence to be found at fault or a perpetrator of some sort of harmful act, the jury is simply analyzing the same evidence, but since the ramifications of truth and the definition of it are changed for the case, the truth becomes less rigid for penalties to be incurred.

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?

above

same evidence, different consequences for the truth and the definition slightly changed.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are guilty of a crime, this is the truth.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are at fault for a harmful act that may not be illegal or led to an illegal act.

what needs to be found for truth has changed in a civil suit vs. a traditional case.

So, you can be innocent of an assault, and yet be guilty to the point to pay for damages of something you are innocent of?

Since less evidence is needed to be found for the truth to be determined, since the ramifications for truth are less severe, essentially yes. Plus what was needed for truth was less severe in the case of OJ Simpson, Two cases of murder vs. wrongful death. The truth is different, in one case Simpson is guilty of double murder, in one case he is guilty of wrongful death. The truth differs and comes with less severe ramifications for one.

Yep, innocent is innocent, and we should just let any jury verdict stand.
In fact, by your logic, any faulty guilty verdict that is overturned should not be allowed, right?

If the interpreter(s) of truth are for some reason flawed (a poor mental state, bias, etc.) or if new evidence has been found or old evidence discounted that would possibly alter the truth, then the verdict should be overturned, otherwise you're right, it shouldn't be.

Truth is truth.

mhm
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 1:03:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:55:30 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:48:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?


Are you serious?

mhm

Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Sure, the Aristotelian definition of justice is "to each their own due", if the accused aren't given their due because of corrupt, vigilante, or stupid police then certainly the accused right's should be taken in to account and the confession should be discarded unless it's made again under more proper circumstances.

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Well since civil suits and at fault divorces require less evidence to be found at fault or a perpetrator of some sort of harmful act, the jury is simply analyzing the same evidence, but since the ramifications of truth and the definition of it are changed for the case, the truth becomes less rigid for penalties to be incurred.

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?

above

same evidence, different consequences for the truth and the definition slightly changed.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are guilty of a crime, this is the truth.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are at fault for a harmful act that may not be illegal or led to an illegal act.

what needs to be found for truth has changed in a civil suit vs. a traditional case.

So, you can be innocent of an assault, and yet be guilty to the point to pay for damages of something you are innocent of?

Since less evidence is needed to be found for the truth to be determined, since the ramifications for truth are less severe, essentially yes. Plus what was needed for truth was less severe in the case of OJ Simpson, Two cases of murder vs. wrongful death. The truth is different, in one case Simpson is guilty of double murder, in one case he is guilty of wrongful death. The truth differs and comes with less severe ramifications for one.

Yep, innocent is innocent, and we should just let any jury verdict stand.
In fact, by your logic, any faulty guilty verdict that is overturned should not be allowed, right?

If the interpreter(s) of truth are for some reason flawed (a poor mental state, bias, etc.) or if new evidence has been found or old evidence discounted that would possibly alter the truth, then the verdict should be overturned, otherwise you're right, it shouldn't be.

Truth is truth.

mhm
Ironic.
Your user name and the fact that you argue some sort of subjective truth.
My work here is, finally, done.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 1:06:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:03:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:55:30 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:48:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:34:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2013 12:25:42 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Semantics, in the eyes of the united states criminal justice system, if you make a confession under duress or pressure or unsubstantiated grounds, you are still innocent, and even if you do make the confession, you still have a right to a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers. The only truth that matters in this case is the one meted out by the US Criminal Justice System, as the US CJS are the only people who can act on the truth and give the guilty their due. Basically the same thing I said before in more detail, better?


Are you serious?

mhm

Are saying there should be no consequences for action, even ones that are clear as day committed by someone (for example, a confession thrown out due to bad search), simply because there was no prosecution?

Sure, the Aristotelian definition of justice is "to each their own due", if the accused aren't given their due because of corrupt, vigilante, or stupid police then certainly the accused right's should be taken in to account and the confession should be discarded unless it's made again under more proper circumstances.

Could a woman file for an at-fault divorce if a man, who was acquitted due to his confession being thrown out, was raping women (i.e. infidelity)?

Well since civil suits and at fault divorces require less evidence to be found at fault or a perpetrator of some sort of harmful act, the jury is simply analyzing the same evidence, but since the ramifications of truth and the definition of it are changed for the case, the truth becomes less rigid for penalties to be incurred.

Also, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife, yet found guilty in a civil suit?

above

same evidence, different consequences for the truth and the definition slightly changed.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are guilty of a crime, this is the truth.

in one case the jury is convicting someone claiming they are at fault for a harmful act that may not be illegal or led to an illegal act.

what needs to be found for truth has changed in a civil suit vs. a traditional case.

So, you can be innocent of an assault, and yet be guilty to the point to pay for damages of something you are innocent of?

Since less evidence is needed to be found for the truth to be determined, since the ramifications for truth are less severe, essentially yes. Plus what was needed for truth was less severe in the case of OJ Simpson, Two cases of murder vs. wrongful death. The truth is different, in one case Simpson is guilty of double murder, in one case he is guilty of wrongful death. The truth differs and comes with less severe ramifications for one.

Yep, innocent is innocent, and we should just let any jury verdict stand.
In fact, by your logic, any faulty guilty verdict that is overturned should not be allowed, right?

If the interpreter(s) of truth are for some reason flawed (a poor mental state, bias, etc.) or if new evidence has been found or old evidence discounted that would possibly alter the truth, then the verdict should be overturned, otherwise you're right, it shouldn't be.

Truth is truth.

mhm
Ironic.
Your user name and the fact that you argue some sort of subjective truth.

ad hominem

my name could apply to a broad spectrum of things.

although the objectivity/subjectivity of truth varies, in some cases fact is blatant and uncontested, but in most cases truth in its entirety is subjective.