Re: Apple sued over LCD screens

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-C71994.19143920052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:

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

There's nothing to debate...

Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
insults such BS:

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

and

where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits

And then, of course, when I push to bring the conversation to a more mature
level and actually show you *information* as to why your views and claims
are simply wrong, you snip them.

You, Steve, clearly had no desire to talk about the issue - you wanted to
start another of your circuses. Sorry, Steve, I am not joining you this
time. I will, however, note that you showed no sign of even reading the
material I posted:

----------
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?
----------

And, clearly, you have nothing useful to add. OK. Thanks for making that
clear.

anyone can see that you're wrong. If the truth insults you perhaps you should
do what is necessary to not have it do so.

You can try to excuse your repulsive behavior however you wish.


--
? It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
? No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
? Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apple sued over LCD screens
    ... Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, ... 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. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple sued over LCD screens
    ... even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of ... reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, ... not *presume* the person he is prosecuting is innocent... ... The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The Pit-Bull Gran
    ... how did the jury find her not guilty? ... 'innocent' by virtue of being out of her skull? ... the case or the 'law'....the jury is sovereign and in fact are ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The Pit-Bull Gran
    ... how did the jury find her not guilty? ... 'innocent' by virtue of being out of her skull? ... the case or the 'law'....the jury is sovereign and in fact are ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Biden the wus
    ... I'm Listening to Reason!" ... I na legal sense he was found not guilty (not the same as innocent, ... that the defendant is presumed "not ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)