Re: Bad News For Right Wing Extremists

In article <C00C69C3.44655%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C00C0568.445F7%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 2/5/06 7:41 PM:

"Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C00BFE6C.445E7%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 2/5/06 7:11 PM:

Steve, I stated:

Even worse than that, however, are the people in society who are so
unbelievably out of touch with the justice system and even reality
that
they believe that one cannot be actually guilty of committing a crime
unless one has been found so

You jumped in to argue with me and to troll me. You can play all the
semantic games you want but you are merely showing off that you are one of
the ones who is so "unbelievably out of touch with the justice system and
even reality that they believe that one cannot be actually guilty of
committing a crime unless one has been found so".

People who are *actually* guilty do not always end up being tried and
convicted. Leave it to you to argue against such a common sense and easy
to
understand point.

Now go troll someone else!

And in response Steve snipped and ran; showing even he knows he is a moron,
or, at the very least, knows he is in way over his head. Here, Steve, read
the following link, and, if you can understand it, you will learn a great
deal: <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>.

Being that you are likely too stupid to be able to figure out how to get to
the page, here are some quotes:

many non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) mistakenly hold the following
view of the presumption of innocence: that unless and until a defendant
has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of
a jury, he remains actually innocent.

On this flawed (and even preposterous) understanding of the law, no one
may permissibly believe that a defendant charged with a crime is
guilty,
if a jury has not already so concluded. In truth, every one of us is
free, both factually and legally, to think whatever we wish about the
guilt or innocence of a defendant, regardless of what a jury has said
or
will say on the matter.

The presumption of innocence is a requirement that applies only to the
members of a jury in a criminal trial. Even as to them, moreover, it
does not dictate jurors' thoughts. It simply obligates them to select
"not guilty" as their verdict if the prosecution fails to produce
sufficient evidence to persuade them of a defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

And, from the linked "earlier column"

The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would
continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty
verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might
even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past
magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent
until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal
description
of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and
Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter
that historical truth. ...

What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In
a
criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important
constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may
only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial
evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put
differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in
fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the
jury to acquit.

Other than one minor nit, those quotes are completely true and completely
consistent with my comments that you have been ignorantly arguing against
for years.

The one minor nit: the author says many people make the mistakes you do. I
see no evidence for that. Your ignorance seems to be a rarity - at a
minimum if there are many others as ignorant as you they do not show it off
as you do, nor have they had their ignorance explained to them as many
times
as you have. Once you have been shown why and how your claims are ignorant
but you insist on arguing them then you no longer are just ignorant; you -
Steve - are a moron.

I suppose at least you have learned enough to know you are so far over your
head that all you can do is snip and run. I suppose that is a form of
progress... even if it is a cowardly reaction to your growing (slightly)
understanding.

Oh so very predictably Steve snipped and ran from the above - as he does so
often from info that he finds humiliating.

I snipped out irrelevant material by a person who resorted to making
things up in order to write it. Did you even bother to read what you
linked to?

Face it, Steve, you are a moron who cannot understand, no less offer a
reasoned refutation, to the above.

As she didn't say anything that was pertinent to the argument I am
involved in with you, what's to refute?

For *years* you have been arguing the
"flawed (and even preposterous)" claims, above. The fact that I *never*
accepted your stupid semantic games nor believed your "flawed (and even
preposterous)" claims has you so pissed you have trolled and flamed me for
years.

Have fun with your repeated blathering where you humiliate yourself even
deeper, such as when you argue that sex crimes such as incest and sex are -
to you - so difficult to differentiate as to be considered "synonymous".

Says the guy that stated it's "worse" to "believe that one cannot be
actually guilty of committing a crime unless one has been found so" than
it is to have the guilty go free or the innocent locked up.

No one in this ng but you ever said that you cannot be guilty unless you
are found so that I ever saw. Of those involved, everyone I saw stated
that you cannot be "legally guilty" until you are "found so". There is a
difference between legal guilt and other forms of it. One would think
this should be easy enough to grasp for a person that provided multiple
definitions of guilt and keeps using the term "actually guilty" so as to
delineate it from *legal guilt*. The word games are all yours.

--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Sion Jenkings...whats going on there?
    ... our legal process....namely the presumption of innocence. ... The CPS had their chance with him in 1998....overturned on appeal. ... This current Jury cannot possibly have entered into this with an open ... No one wants to see a guilty man go free....especially for a crime such as ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: OT Scary stuff
    ... I would say that most of my "criminal" clients violated the law. ... "Innocence" is not a verdict recognized by our ... I was a member of a jury for county criminal court a few months ago. ... I thought I was the only one who thought he was not guilty. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Cha Vangs Killer Found Guity Of 2nd Degree Murderer
    ... Jury Finds Wis. ... Hunter Guilty Of Murder ... Leaders of several Hmong groups expressed similar sentiments at the ...
    (soc.culture.hmong)
  • Re: Apple sued over LCD screens
    ... where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits ... would continue to be innocent, ... brought in a guilty verdict against him. ... The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What does it mean
    ... before a jury. ... proven history of such crimes. ... the jury and make them tend to more believe they are guilty. ... upset cause the cops haven't found someone to convict yet. ...
    (rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons)