RE: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cadenas_sd
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:44 PM
> > 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.
What you wrote is that definition 3 is the same as definition one except
that they're different!
(By the way, nice snipping of the M-W definition!)
Which was the point I made, and you pretended didn't exist: THERE ARE TWO
MEANINGS OF THE WORD.
One is more formal in a legal context, the other is, as the M-W definition
put it: "an outward sign; indication".
So would you care to retract you assertion that I was inventing that second
meaning?
> > > 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.
Umm, I did. At length. In my response to Vicki.
Wanna try again?
> > > But it is NOT evidence of *wrongdoing*
> > > 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.
Thank you.
You've just made my entire case. Woot!
IF, as you now claim, "any particular standard of proof" COULD be
acceptable, THEN you must accept the extreme case where standard of proof is
the (extremely weak) standard that "the authorities" have probable cause,
i.e. the arrest.
And that's the whole issue in a nutshell: IF, as I think you must, you allow
employers to be the sole judge of what is adequate proof, THEN you must
allow standards of proof that you personally would consider inadequate. By
contrast, if you _don't_ allow employers to be the sole judge, then you
stuck with defining an acceptable standard[1], and that's something you've
declined to do here, possibly for the very good reason that it's virtually
impossible to do in a general fashion.
[1] you can move the problem around a bit, but in essence it doesn't change.
For example, the BC statute permits firing if the arrest is related to the
performance of the job. So what does that mean? If one is preoccupied
because, say, one's just been arrested, that preoccupation may well impact
the performance of the job...
> > 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..
wrongdoing.
> 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.
No propaganda, dude. Your ignorance of the affair is showing.
Armitage leaked the name. Not Cheney. Did Cheney instruct or manipulate
Armitage to leak? It seems likely, but maybe it was Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz. We don't know.
But we DO know that Armitage leaked the name. We just don't know the full
background as to _why_.
> And the answer is: because there is no actual evidence. It
> would take an impeachment trial to collect that.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge.
Prosecuting Armitage is not feasible because the crime is to _knowingly_
disclose the identity of a covert operative. It's virtually impossible to
prove that Armitage knew that Plame's job was not common knowledge,
therefore _he_ was disclosing it.
> 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).
Yup. What's your point? All that says is that people don't care much about
_that_ wrongdoing (possibly for the reasons you think so significant: that
they think Cheney was behind it). That whole leeway think that scares you
so much...
> 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.
That seems to be a near-perfect example of argumentum ad hominem!
It also seems a good example of utter bollocks.
> So, why are you even here?
Ah, lovely! You've got back on your witchunt! I do so hate to see bigots
deprived of their opportunities to attack those who aren't impressed by
their bigotry!
You may as well ask why Leigha Fleming freely spends so much of her own time
in the cause (massively more than I do, and I'm pretty confident massively
more than Wiseman does, and you do, etc.)
The crux of the matter is that I, and many others, don't agree with your
view of the problem.
Or, to put it another way, that your cure is worse than the disease.
Still, Cadenas, since you want to play this game: why are you here? You
could move to Thailand or France... Or Canada.
Malc.
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
11:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home