Re: Apple sued over LCD screens

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-6FDECE.10020120052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/20/07 9:02 AM:

no doubt about it, apple fucked up.

There is considerable doubt.

If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...

Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
*presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
need for due process / adjudication.

Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?

I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on this
particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.

Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...

Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially where guilt and
laws are concerned.

Note: Steve pushes his attempt by making over-reaching insults against
others.

Sandman, if you read this: note that Steve did not *start* a thread, but he
did jump in to this thread and try to start a debate... not just by claiming
to disagree with me in this thread (that is fair) but by bringing up his
past views of me and, frankly, outright lying about me. Read below where
Steve continues to push his clear desire to start not just a debate but a
back-and-forth insult game.

Realistically, the presumption of innocence by the "legal system" is only
theoretical in nature in a criminal trial (note that this case is not a
criminal case). This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are
detained out of a concern that they won't show for trial; if such people were
truly *presumed* innocent by the "obligation" Snit claims the "legal system"
has to make such a presumption, they could not rightfully be held against
their will, yet they are held. The "obligation" to presume innocence with
respect to the "legal system" mainly belongs to the juror (and any perspective
jurors... i.e. - any one of us) and rightfully so.

Gee, Steve, you figured out that the presumption of innocence is not 100%
and sometimes the accused is held against their will. Wow, Steve, did you
go to law school or something to figure that out? LOL!

Yes, Steve, I know - you are going to focus on my couple of sentences and
completely miss the fact that I did not mean it as a full and complete
lesson on the judicial system. You, however, did write more... and what you
wrote is not correct, as I show below.

If, like Snit, you fail to understand how important this obligation is, you'll
likely only learn about it when you are the one facing the erroneous
charges... where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits who
have learned about the presumption of innocence from some bizarre perspective
as he has.

Wow: once again you try to start your absurd little debates by spewing your
insults. You still deny you are consumed by your hatred, right? LOL!

I guarantee you the prosecutor, a fundamental part of the "legal system", does
not *presume* the person he is prosecuting is innocent... any more than does
the part of the "legal system" that holds a person in a cell against his will
when it has yet to be proven he is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the
legal system". A poster once wrote this to Snit... about a thing Snit
obviously still has not learned and probably never will:

"Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".

Instead of just showing how much you are consumed by your hatred, Steve, why
don't you try to learn?

<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html>
------
During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial,
I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some
misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.

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.
...
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia
Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we
all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury
reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an
acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was
innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in
law or logic.
...
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.

The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a
person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we
all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal
circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty
man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct
of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds
that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a
crime.

None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest
of us--the people of the United States who are not serving
on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to
think or say.
------

and: <http://www.fff.org/freedom/0790a.asp>
------
I used to be a civil and criminal trial attorney. I was
often asked, "Don't you lose sleep when you get guilty
people off the hook?" My answer was, "Never." In fact, of
all the criminal cases I handled ? drug, murder, theft,
assault, embezzlement, fraud ? I lost sleep for several
weeks in only one case. That was the case in which I
believed, and still believe, that I had lost an innocent man
to ten years in the federal penitentiary.
...
To this day, when I hear an American judge instructing a
jury to presume the defendant innocent and not to convict
him unless convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I
take great pride in being an American...

The Founding Fathers and the American people of the 1700s
were not naive. They knew that the procedural safeguards in
the Bill of Rights would result in the release of many
guilty people. But they were willing to accept that price in
order to ensure that innocent people were never, or rarely,
convicted. They fully recognized that which freedom devotees
on the Right recognized ? that those who violate the rights
of others need to be punished. But what they also recognized
is what those on the Right so often do not: that sometimes
people are wrongly accused of violating the rights of
others.
-----

Do you have any *useful* commentary on that Steve that does not include
clear signs of your irrational hatred and your unending need to try to start
battles in CSMA?


--
? OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
? OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
? Photoshop is an image editing application




.