[BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
--- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cadenas_sd
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:54 AM
>
> [ Snip ]
>
> > > You are conflating two uses of the word "evidence". One is the
> > > criminal justice sense, where it is part of the process of
> > > establishing legal
> > guilt
> > > or innocense.
> > >
> > > The other is the plain English language one, in which it means
> > "suggestive"
> > > or "indicative"
> > >
> > > Like it or not, the fact that the principal got arrested is
> > > EVIDENCE. It is not, of course, PROOF.
> >
> > Um, no. You are making up a second definition where none exists.
> > Evidence in the judicial sense is the same as evidence in every other
> > sense: indicative or suggestive, as you put it.
>
> Don't be fatuous, Cadenas.
>
> Go to a dictionary. Open it. Read.
> Another clue, this time from Dictionary.com:
>
> Evidence -noun
> 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
> proof.
> 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His
flushed
> look was visible evidence of his fever.
> 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in
issue and
> which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or
> objects.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Definition 3 is
squarely the same as definition 1. The only difference is that 3 is
more formal in the legal context.
> > You are glossing over the far more critical aspect: what it
> > is evidence of. Nobody will deny that the fact that the
> > principal has been arrested is valid evidence that at some
> > point something happened that led to that arrest.
>
> No, I'm not glossing over it.
Then how come you didn't mention it.
> > But it is NOT evidence of *wrongdoing*
> > know what the "something" was that happened.
>
> Ah, you seem still to be laboring under the goofy belief that the
> only justification for making personnel decisions is whether or not
> a court can convict.
<personal attack removed>
You are once again building a straw man. NOBODY demanded that the
standard of proof be the same as for a criminal conviction. For that
matter, nobody even demanded any particular standard of proof at all.
> Here's a simple example: when Richard Armitage told reporters that
> Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, that was wrongdoing. Pure and
> simple.
> Has he been arrested, charged, or convicted? Nope, because it would
> be impossible to secure a conviction..
Ummm... No. But good job trying to slip in this piece of right-wing
propaganda. The actual culprit is quite obviously Dick Cheney. Thank
you for showing your true colors.
And the answer is: because there is no actual evidence. It would take
an impeachment trial to collect that.
For that matter, I should also point out that Armitage did not suffer
employment consequences (in the contrary, he resigned before the
Valerie Plame story broke, and is now a board member of
ConocoPhilipps, and there has been talk about him reentering public
service).
I'm seriously wondering why you are even on this group. Being as
extremist right-wing as you show, you obviously hate sexually active
people. And you obviously advocate keeping the San Diego Six poor and
homeless for their sexual interests.
So, why are you even here?
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
11:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home