Re: Apple sued over LCD screens

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-EEA908.11080021052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/21/07 10:08 AM:

In article <mr-FF1F11.08362221052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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...

Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
of yours in a new thread?

I agree.

I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.

Incorrect. You clearly brought up your ideas from the past:

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

When you did so, Steve, you left the current comments behind and entered
into your sad little world of personal attacks. When I then countered your
comments about what you called my "errors" by showing you expert opinions
that clearly differed from your own, you not only snipped those comments you
then started questioning if those people were experts, even though their
credentials were listed on the pages I linked to!

In the end, Steve, I would prefer to *not* play the blame game. Let us get
back to the topic. Why can't you respond honestly to the following:

<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.
------

<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.
-----

Note how your views on presumption of innocence are clearly countered. Do
you have a reasoned reply?

Below you just repeat what you have written before - making personal
attacks, avoiding the information I posted, above, and generally just
trolling.

Further, I didn't purposely intend to insult anyone, I pointed out an error.
If reality insults Snit he should do what he needs to do to prevent that from
happening. If our legal system had a genuine obligation to presume innocence
then no person who has yet to be officially pronounced guilty would see the
inside of a cell. Being that we know this isn't the case, Snit's position is
obviously erroneous. I even provided him a quote by another person (if it
comes from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he
didn't like the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it.
Here it is:

"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".

Easy enough to see why Snit would have a problem with this, he doesn't like
the idea that anything he engages in could be labeled as bigotry.
Realistically, there's nothing to debate here...there is only a reality Snit
is trying hard to avoid. Again... I didn't hijack this thread with an old
issue... I addressed a topic and an error made by the person who brought the
topic in. That Snit sees calling him on his error and surrounding contextual
inconsistencies as insulting actions is his problem (despite his blustering,
this doesn't fit your criteria).



--
? Nuclear arms are arms
? OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
? Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Bad News For Right Wing Extremists
    ... Snit wrote: ... like Taylor...and we'd get innocent people, ... The sad truth, however, is that sometimes not only do the guilty end up ... In the U.S., as in many other places, the "justice system" deals ...
    (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: The Scooter Saga
    ... I am constantly amazed at how we seem so willing to brand someone as guilty ... were guilty or innocent. ... > The involved plot of "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney, ... Bush ...
    (soc.retirement)