|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
OK.... but, assume that there is no "reasonable doubt" that I killed a guy.
What then?
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,111
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,111 |
Then ask yourself again...."Do I have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE?" It seems to me that if you leave it in the hands of the prosecuting attorney and the jury, only, you will be in jail. The Prosecuting attorney has already determined that you are guilty, and is trying to convince the jury, and you simply getting on the stand and saying that you are not guilty will not be enough. You, through your defense attorney has to prove your innocence or at least reasonable doubt. That varies on the type of trial is going on. miles
Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654 |
OK.... but, assume that there is no "reasonable doubt" that I killed a guy.
What then? There'll probably be no doubt that you killed a guy. But if you introduce reasonable doubt that you murdered him EVEN WITHOUT PROVING YOUR INNOCENCE, you'll be found not-guilty.
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654 |
Then ask yourself again...."Do I have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE?" You, through your defense attorney has to prove your innocence or at least reasonable doubt. That varies on the type of trial is going on. miles Good grief. That's what some of us have been saying for three pages..... If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,111
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,111 |
That's what some of us have been saying for three pages..... And what we have been saying is that it is up to you, not the law to do so. The law wants you to be guilty. It has not always been that way, but it seems to be so now. miles
Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654 |
Oh my goodness.
Saying "This is why I killed him" IS NOT "proving your innocence".
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654 |
No wonder this country is so jacked up if yall are representative of reading comprehension and critical thinking.
Last edited by Bluedreaux; 01/02/16.
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
You are hung up on semantics, Blue. It's similar to; " A Not guilty verdict doesn't mean you are innocent".
Technically, that's right. In the real world, they have the same meaning.
You may say that "reasonable doubt" is the objective, and an "affirmative defense" is the vehicle to reach it.
But... back to the original point..... "actions being within policy guidelines" is an affirmative defense commonly used by cops that is not available to the rest of us. And they still get to use the same self defense standard that we do in addition to that.
So it is much harder to prosecute a cop for wrongful death than it is for the rest of us.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,607 Likes: 9
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,607 Likes: 9 |
If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. If you introduce reasonable doubt, you *have* proven your innocence. Your stupid is showing again. You post stupid shat. Then post more stupid shat, in order to explain that the stupid shat you posted before isn't as stupid as it looks. Normally, it's harmless. But in this case, people need to be advised to keep both hands over their a$$ and get legal advice in the event they have to shoot someone, not that they can just not worry about evidence and have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,654 |
If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. If you introduce reasonable doubt, you *have* proven your innocence. So OJ PROVED that he was INNOCENT?
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,540
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,540 |
Since the jury didn't witness the alleged "crime" one is being charged with, the defendant and his lawyer have to try to convince the jury of his innocence, or reasonable doubt of his guilt, to win his freedom. This takes action and effort.
Assuming that the prosecution can't overcome the burden of "reasonable doubt", and to do little to fight for ones acquittal, would certainly suggest to the jury that there is "reasonable doubt" about the defendants innocence.
Jurors are human. Logic and emotion will both play into their decisions during deliberation.
Last edited by nifty-two-fifty; 01/02/16.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. If you introduce reasonable doubt, you *have* proven your innocence. So OJ PROVED that he was INNOCENT? O J walked. Just like the cop who shot the guy crawling out of his overturned vehicle. But O J had to hire a Dream Team of lawyers in order to walk. It didn't cost the cop a dime........... and, unlike O J..... there was video showing the cop walking up, pulling his pistol, shooting the guy once, holstering his pistol and searching for the spent cartridge case.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,540
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,540 |
If a defendant is guilty, he may fight hard to try to create reasonable doubt (e.g. OJ Simpson).
If a defendant is innocent, he had better fight like heck to "prove his innocence". In the absence of very hard facts to prove his innocence, (in which case he probably wouldn't be charged in the first place), the best he can do is build a good case of reasonable doubt for the jury to base their decision on.
I wish some of you folks would stop getting into such stupid arguments over semantics, just for the sake of arguing.
Last edited by nifty-two-fifty; 01/02/16.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243 |
Wow. Over a hunnert pages of high blood pressure and heartburn on both sides. Me? I feel great today. My plan is to wait for all the reports to come out before I hyperventilate. It ain't gonna change the heartbreak and tragedy for either side no matter what the findings, but I hope we get answers.... and justice.
And the irony is.......90% of the bickering and name calling ain't got chit to do with the incident and everything to do with the posters' ego.... That's because the "cops are evil" crowd don't give two flips about the dead man. This is just fuel for their agenda. I'm not mourning his loss either, I never knew him. But I'm not going on a crusade "in his name". LOL.....climb down off your high-horse there turbo......Clearly....your intentions are no more pure than the "cops are evil" (your derogatory term, not mine) crowd....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
That's what some of us have been saying for three pages.....
If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. Let me butt in there, a second, Blue. I know what you mean, but for the benefit of the audience, let me point out that a defendant doesn't have to introduce reasonable doubt. The prosecution can put on its evidence ... The defendant and his lawyer can both sit there, mute as stumps, and not even move to scratch themselves, and ... The jury can say to themselves, "The prosecution's case doesn't seem to make sense to me. I've got a lot of doubt about this." Theoretically, anyway. In actual practice, the defendant's lawyer is going to stand up and argue that the prosecution's case doesn't make much sense and the jury should have a lot of doubt about this. But even then, the defendant's lawyer doesn't have to introduce anything by way of evidence.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,970 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,970 Likes: 5 |
Reasonable doubt does not prove innocence nor does a guilty verdict prove guilt. People have been wrongly convicted, just as reasonable doubt have allowed guilt to go free. It works both ways
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,063
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,063 |
You are hung up on semantics, Blue... No, he isn't. He's just deflecting attention away from the lack of justice.
"There's more to optics than meets the eye."--anon
"...most of us would be better off losing half a pound around the waist than half a pound on our rifle."--dhg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,922 Likes: 10
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,922 Likes: 10 |
Just a note, in our legal system, neither side is concerned with uncovering the truth, only with convincing the jury of the truth as they wish it to be.
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,370
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,370 |
EVEN WITHOUT PROVING YOUR INNOCENCE, you'll be found not-guilty. Maybe in a perfect world, but juries don't always work that way. Juries a lot of times, weigh the preponderance of evidence in determining guilt or innocence...hiring the best defense attorney you can, merely increases your chances at a favorable outcome, unless of course you can PROVE your innocence...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
Over 2600 post and this thread hasn't devolved into a display of naked women?
You guys are slipping.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
174 members (12344mag, 10Glocks, 44mc, 470Evans, 7887mm08, 16 invisible),
1,609
guests, and
933
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,455
Posts18,507,971
Members74,002
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|