|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2016 07:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Oh boy.. Trump is actually loving this https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/It would have been worse for him if she actually had been indicted and replaced. The replacement would almost certainly do better than Hillary will in November + this is just giving him more ammunition to win over independents in the general.
it's not at all clear that a last minute replacement would do better, as they'd be far behind on setting up a campaign, and if it was Sanders, he'd have a whole host of issues of his own to deal with. And pushing someone else through last minute would be awkward, and there's not exactly tons of suitable candidates.
|
On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for.
Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost.
If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged.
|
On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for.
Yes but he's said this will be a unique circumstance
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
|
On July 06 2016 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:55 ZeaL. wrote:On July 06 2016 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead? yes. and it may be the case that the attorney general bows out (as she should) and appoints independent counsel. that is why i asked in my original question. Wouldn't the fact that the AG appoints them create the appearance of impropriety given that the AG is appointed by the president my word choice was poor. i didnt mean the AG would appoint independent counsel. i would think congress would appoint independent counsel, but dont know the logistics of this unique issue.
Thus was my confusion. It's not like the AG can just recuse themselves and without someone to replace them.
|
On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged.
I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning.
|
On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning.
Can they only charge her with gross negligence and not the previous SoS? Or the folks who sent the emails to the server? I assume there is some standard of responsibility for the sender.
Edit: Also, how do they prove harm beyond a reasonable doubt? I am not as familiar with gross negligence, but harm still has be proven, correct?
|
On July 06 2016 08:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. Can they only charge her with gross negligence and not the previous SoS? Or the folks who sent the emails to the server? I assume there is some standard of responsibility for the sender.
In theory, they could go after the previous SoS's presuming that the statutes of limitation haven't run. But per my previous posts, their conduct was very different from Hillary's, and not as egregious.
Edit: Also, how do they prove harm beyond a reasonable doubt? I am not as familiar with gross negligence, but harm still has be proven, correct?
They don't have to prove harm. That's not one of the elements of the statute. "Gross negligence" is merely the standard of intent. It's like negligence, but a step up in terms of how stupid the action was. The whole idea of requiring evidence of intentional misconduct to bring charges sounding in negligence is completely asinine, which is why Comey is attracting a lot of flack for what he said.
|
On July 06 2016 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 08:09 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. Can they only charge her with gross negligence and not the previous SoS? Or the folks who sent the emails to the server? I assume there is some standard of responsibility for the sender. In theory, they could go after the previous SoS's presuming that the statutes of limitation haven't run. But per my previous posts, their conduct was very different from Hillary's, and not as egregious. Show nested quote +Edit: Also, how do they prove harm beyond a reasonable doubt? I am not as familiar with gross negligence, but harm still has be proven, correct? They don't have to prove harm. That's not one of the elements of the statute. "Gross negligence" is merely the standard of intent. It's like negligence, but a step up in terms of how stupid the action was. The whole idea of requiring evidence of intentional misconduct to bring charges sounding in negligence is completely asinine, which is why Comey is attracting a lot of flack for what he said.
NPR was reporting that it was really unusual for the FBI to announce findings via a press conference.
The main issue I see how they prove that the emails would have been "likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both," without going through the content of the emails in open court. The fact that they are classified might not be enough to convince a jury the content of the emails had dangerous information on them. There is no defense that is going to let that stand unchallenged. And from my reading on how things get classified in the government, those emails might not be that sensitive.
|
On July 06 2016 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 08:09 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. Can they only charge her with gross negligence and not the previous SoS? Or the folks who sent the emails to the server? I assume there is some standard of responsibility for the sender. In theory, they could go after the previous SoS's presuming that the statutes of limitation haven't run. But per my previous posts, their conduct was very different from Hillary's, and not as egregious. Show nested quote +Edit: Also, how do they prove harm beyond a reasonable doubt? I am not as familiar with gross negligence, but harm still has be proven, correct? They don't have to prove harm. That's not one of the elements of the statute. "Gross negligence" is merely the standard of intent. It's like negligence, but a step up in terms of how stupid the action was. The whole idea of requiring evidence of intentional misconduct to bring charges sounding in negligence is completely asinine, which is why Comey is attracting a lot of flack for what he said.
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning.
That's how law works. If there's no evidence of wrongdoing, you're pronounced innocent. Not this "well there was just no proof she was actually guilty, but she could be" whatever.
|
Personally, I'd like to add more gradations between innocent and guilty.
|
Those are just different charges though right? I'm guilty of this but innocent in these other things.
What does having a gradation do for us in the court of law other than let us punish ppl we really dislike without enough proof?
|
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it.
|
On July 06 2016 09:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. That's how law works. If there's no evidence of wrongdoing, you're pronounced innocent. Not this "well there was just no proof she was actually guilty, but she could be" whatever.
What XDaunt is saying is there is evidence of classified emails on a private server that should not have been there. This is enough for a negligence charge.
There might not be evidence for intentional misconduct, but misconduct itself happened and that can be prosecuted on (obviously with the punishment being less severe)
|
On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it.
At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system.
Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea.
|
On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea.
that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility.
No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities.
And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman.
|
On July 06 2016 09:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. That's how law works. If there's no evidence of wrongdoing, you're pronounced innocent. Not this "well there was just no proof she was actually guilty, but she could be" whatever.
Except Comey laid out a litany of wrongdoing that constitutes gross negligence and a violation of those applicable laws. What he did was then say that he is not recommending prosecution because he thinks that there should be a showing of more (intentional misconduct) than what the statute requires (gross negligence).
|
On July 06 2016 09:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 06 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's? The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for. Is this not covered when he says it is likely someone stole her information, but that they have no way to prove it? He is saying that strong suggestion something was lost is not the same as that thing being confirmed as lost. If they could prove Russia got secrets, it sounds like his implication is that she'd be charged. I don't think that Comey based the decision not to recommend prosecution based upon whether there was evidence of a harm done (ie Russia accessing the info). I think he very clearly based it upon the absence of evidence showing true intentional misconduct by Hillary, either in using the information or trying to cover up what she did. My point is that the Nishmura case raises serious questions about the veracity of that line of reasoning. That's how law works. If there's no evidence of wrongdoing, you're pronounced innocent. Not this "well there was just no proof she was actually guilty, but she could be" whatever. What XDaunt is saying is there is evidence of classified emails on a private server that should not have been there. This is enough for a negligence charge. There might not be evidence for intentional misconduct, but misconduct itself happened and that can be prosecuted on (obviously with the punishment being less severe)
Yeah, this. If anyone is confused about my point, go read Comey's statement again and pay particular attention to the litany of findings that the FBI made during its investigation. He very clearly laid out a case that Hillary engaged in criminally negligent conduct. You can't read it any other way. Even some of the language that he used in describing her conduct was very charged.
|
On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman.
If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one.
|
On July 06 2016 09:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman. If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one.
just because that's how law currently works doesn't mean other systems can't be used. I also never said other standards would be considered convictions; which could be considered a loaded term; also different charges may not be relevant to some of the cases wherein I would want such a system.
also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13533083_10154347809283711_7920272077040711501_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=a4908d4d4d9bc8eb7959b693adda095e&oe=57FFA2A1)
