Rob's House Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: An ethical prosecutor would not bring charges against someone he presumed to be innocent. Evidence maybe what created his presumption. But prior to a conviction, it is simply the prosecutors presumption that the person his guilty. I don't know why you are offended by the idea that the legal presumption of innocence is only a requirement of the juror and judge. It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion. 2
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Rob's House said: It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion. Do you always presume the accuser is lying?
GoBills808 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: Right, but that bar is still based on evidence, not on probable cause. I think it's probably a line that gets blurred far too often and violates peoples rights, but non-the-less, the system is built to protect the individuals rights and their expectation to be treated as innocent- I know that reality looks much different though. Yep the last part is 100% correct and if everyone understood their rights better I think the legal system would be far better off. The first sentence though assumes a meaningful difference between evidence and PC when in reality (and legally) they are very much the same concept.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, PlayoffsPlease said: Do you always presume the accuser is lying? Shouldn't the first response always be 'Why do you say that?' I.e. provide proof please
starrymessenger Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: There is enough. Her testimony alone would be legally sufficient to support conviction of a crime/crimes. Whether Brown should be charged, and whether a jury should convict on that testimony, are different questions. But there is enough to convict — it’s called “legally sufficient evidence” — even in the absence of a corroborating witness. **This point, of course, assumes that her version of events is credible and that she can testify credibly as to those events. Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.
Cripple Creek Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Shouldn't the first response always be 'Why do you say that?' I.e. provide proof please Depends on the circumstance. If you are the police and someone calls and says "there is a guy pounding on my door screaming he is going to kill me" I would expect the police to respond without asking for proof.
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: Do you always presume the accuser is lying? Presuming the innocence of the accused =\= presuming the accuser is lying. I try not to presume anything. The presumption basically means you don't take adverse action against someone without strong factual support for the allegation. The accuser is not in a similar position as the accuser is not typically one who is subject to sanctions. 3
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said: So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent? I don't know about you but I assemble a makeshift grand jury in my house and if they decide I have enough information to form an opinion I go with it. But not before. 1
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent? You are. If you asked to be on the jury you have to set aside that opinion or tell the judge you can''t be fair.
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent? That's taking the principle to an extreme. I would say it's irresponsible to publicly declare someone guilty of an accusation without strong evidence to support your position.
GoBills808 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent? Nah, the whole presumption of innocence thing only meaningfully applies to parties involved in legal proceedings.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: Depends on the circumstance. If you are the police and someone calls and says "there is a guy pounding on my door screaming he is going to kill me" I would expect the police to respond without asking for proof. That's a false equivalence. The police will certainly come out, because that is their job, but they aren't going to immediately put someone in cuffs unless they're presented with evidence of a crime. Basically they don't show up because they presume guilt, they show up to gather evidence and react accordingly. Edited September 11, 2019 by BuffaloHokie13
whatdrought Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Yep the last part is 100% correct and if everyone understood their rights better I think the legal system would be far better off. The first sentence though assumes a meaningful difference between evidence and PC when in reality (and legally) they are very much the same concept. Thats the part I’m unsure of. I have a limited (super limited) law background and in all of expierience I have only ever seen PC used and explained as a tool on the front end to allow the gathering of evidence. Do you have an example of PC being used to arrest/take someone to trial/indict someone, without there being evidence present?
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent? If your opinion is based on only what is published in the media, and not on personal knowledge, however it is probably not an opinion you should expect others to respect. 1
GoBills808 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Thats the part I’m unsure of. I have a limited (super limited) law background and in all of expierience I have only ever seen PC used and explained as a tool on the front end to allow the gathering of evidence. Do you have an example of PC being used to arrest/take someone to trial/indict someone, without there being evidence present? Can't cite particular case law offhand but I am like 99% sure probable cause is the standard by which an indictment by grand jury is issued. Same for arrest/search warrants
plenzmd1 Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 So looks like she is going to talk with the NFL next week..as she is gettimg married....... this wee and this is the week you decide to file this lawsuit?? My guess is he is inactive on Sunday, but not on exempt list, and after meeting next week NFL will decide which direction to head https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/09/11/antonio-browns-accuser-plans-to-meet-with-the-nfl-next-week/
whatdrought Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Can't cite particular case law offhand but I am like 99% sure probable cause is the standard by which an indictment by grand jury is issued. Same for arrest/search warrants I’d have to look into it more... probable cause for search warrants make sense, even for arrest to some extent because arrest’s have like a 3 day shelf life before they have to present evidence to the GJ, I just don’t see how PC can be used to indict as it’s not evidence. Swerving while driving is probably cause to pull someone over, but it isn’t proof they were drinking and driving. The smell of marijuana is probably cause to search an apartment, but it isn’t evidence that there’s illegal possession. A bomb dog alerting to a persons backpack is probably cause to search the backpack, but short of finding anything in the bag, what charge is there? EDIT: Probable* Edited September 11, 2019 by whatdrought
ColoradoBills Posted September 11, 2019 Posted September 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Cmdjr85 said: This woman is a fraud. Most rape victims don't report it because they dont wanna have to relive the experience and face the accused in a trial. Why not press criminal charges? Probablu advised that lying to law enforcement can lead to heavy sanctions. Nothing to worry about when going for money either your believed and you as plaintiff win. Or not believed and you lose. You can't possibly know that as a fact. None of us bystanders know for sure. Let the thing work thru the system. I'm sure being a Pats* fan sways your opinion.
Recommended Posts