OT: Arrest Warrants issued for Giants Bakers and Seahawks Dunbar

[fnordcircle]

Actually you said he was “found innocent”. Obviously you’re too stupid to realize no such thing exists.

What is it with you little right wing internet gladiators that, when it's clear you were wrong, double down on trying to just find a way to feel technically correct?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

What is it with you little right wing internet gladiators that, when it's clear you were wrong, double down on trying to just find a way to feel technically correct?

Actually...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

As an engineer, I like to make decisions and judgements based on facts and not conjecture even when I have to make assumptions in order to arrive at a solution to a problem.

Sorry dude, there's a guy on here that trades on that fairly reasonable sounding proposition, and he's the local Hydrox/Cold-eez king... and is still trying to contort every positive-sounding observation into proof positive. Had to put him on ignore, but I shortened the warning track for these bozos recently... all that to say "I'm an engineer" is sadly even less of a be-all end-all here than out there in the world, & you have the Hydroxymorons to thank

Maybe if you're a PE, that changes it? Imunno.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

That is some next level stupidity. The warrants alone are about as damning as it gets:
https://miramarfl.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15304/Click-Here

Seriously, the most damning thing about that warrant is it's 2020, and they printed it out with "11o: 0o PM" in it, and fixed it with a sharpie rather than fixing it on the computer and print it again. Unless that's the last Selectric in service.

Edit: I wonder if it turned that 0 : into an emoji like my keyboard did...

 

[XLIX]

What is it with you little right wing internet gladiators that, when it's clear you were wrong, double down on trying to just find a way to feel technically correct?

That’s not a technicality. If someone is going to lecture me about “innocent until proven guilty” and “the American way” then they demonstrate tremendous ignorance of the criminal justice system when they claim someone was “found innocent” in court.

If you’re too ignorant to realize this, which it seems you are, I can’t help you.

 

[Vatahala]

Its as slow here as I have ever seen it, can't JS4 be throwing some passes at Foxboro High?

Meanwhile the Bills Stadium Wall MB is hopping.

Bills fans have created a 55 page thread to Ed Oliver's arrest last Saturday. How many different ways can you say dumb move kid?

 

[Ring 6]

He was found guilty in the civil trial and owes a lot of money. He practically admitted it too with that book and TV special "if... I DID IT" oh how clever.

What a bizarre five minutes reading through that was. So much misuse and misunderstand of basic stuff.
Everyone is legally innocent of everything until proven guilty because you have to be proven guilty to be legally guilty.
The presumption of innocence applies solely and exclusively to the jurors in a trial. Anyone else can presume whatever they want. But the jurors must presume innocence until guilt is proven to them beyond a shadow of a doubt meaning no one can be legally found guilty without absolute certainty on the part of the jury.
Unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are legally innocent but legally innocent is not the same as being factually innocent.

OJ Simpson appears to be factually guilty, but legally he is innocent of committing the murders because the one shot that is allowed at convicting him resulted in the one jury tasked to doing it, ruling they had reasonable doubt.
He is legally liable for the deaths because a majority, not unanimity of jurors felt it was more likely than not that he was responsible.

As far as it relates to this case everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want. There is no requirement to have an opinion that is guided by innocent until proven guilty unless you are a juror. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, except people in a position to act on their poorly informed view. No one has sufficient facts to judge their guilt and no one need have every fact to have an opinion.

 

[Tony2046]

Yeah. You know what that stuff is?

Polyethylene glycol.

Clinical grade industrial solvent .

damn is it good at cleaning out the GI tract!

Before I take that stuff again I'm installing seatbelts on my toilet.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

back o(n)t....any updates on these MIT candidates.

 

[1960Pats]

This is going well..

The colonoscopy talk doesn't stink as much as that exchange. I've never reported anyone in 8 years on this site, but I actually considered it here.

 

[1960Pats]

Yes it does...sometimes not much at all if you're pooping like that as part of a pre-colonoscopy procedure...take it from someone who's gone through two of them...

Damn. There goes my belief you’re always full of s**t.

I can sympathize, I’ve had a couple of them myself. So I know there were at least a couple of days when I wasn’t full of it either.

I think I've had more of them than the two of you combined.

My primary doctor told me a great joke to tell my proctologist. What do you call a colonoscope? That's an instrument with an ***hole on each end. I told him that one just before he performed the procedure.

One other time, just before the procedure, he came up to me with paperwork to sign. When I saw that there were two lines I asked him which line I should sign on. He pointed at the top one and told me if I signed the other one I'd have to do the procedure on him, and he said that he's full of ****.

Some time ago that proctologist went to primary care so I had to find a new one. The hospital sent me to a Dr Kakka. No lie.

Now for a question about another procedure. Have you ever had a cystoscopy? That's where they send a camera up the front and into your bladder for a look-see. I was nervous for two weeks before that but it was nothing.

 

[1960Pats]

What a bizarre five minutes reading through that was. So much misuse and misunderstand of basic stuff.
Everyone is legally innocent of everything until proven guilty because you have to be proven guilty to be legally guilty.
The presumption of innocence applies solely and exclusively to the jurors in a trial. Anyone else can presume whatever they want. But the jurors must presume innocence until guilt is proven to them beyond a shadow of a doubt meaning no one can be legally found guilty without absolute certainty on the part of the jury.
Unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are legally innocent but legally innocent is not the same as being factually innocent.

OJ Simpson appears to be factually guilty, but legally he is innocent of committing the murders because the one shot that is allowed at convicting him resulted in the one jury tasked to doing it, ruling they had reasonable doubt.
He is legally liable for the deaths because a majority, not unanimity of jurors felt it was more likely than not that he was responsible.

As far as it relates to this case everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want. There is no requirement to have an opinion that is guided by innocent until proven guilty unless you are a juror. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, except people in a position to act on their poorly informed view. No one has sufficient facts to judge their guilt and no one need have every fact to have an opinion.

One of the things you said in that post really stood out, and I think it's part of the reason we have trouble convicting criminals. The prosecution does not have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" to convict. They only have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm sure there are plenty of jurors who see it the wrong way also.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Before I take that stuff again I'm installing seatbelts on my toilet.

I got one coming up soon, fun times, at least Ill lose weight.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I think I've had more of them than the two of you combined.

My primary doctor told me a great joke to tell my proctologist. What do you call a colonoscope? That's an instrument with an ***hole on each end. I told him that one just before he performed the procedure.

One other time, just before the procedure, he came up to me with paperwork to sign. When I saw that there were two lines I asked him which line I should sign on. He pointed at the top one and told me if I signed the other one I'd have to do the procedure on him, and he said that he's full of ****.

Some time ago that proctologist went to primary care so I had to find a new one. The hospital sent me to a Dr Kakka. No lie.

Now for a question about another procedure. Have you ever had a cystoscopy? That's where they send a camera up the front and into your bladder for a look-see. I was nervous for two weeks before that but it was nothing.

Had that done when I had kidney stones, felt like I was going to pi$$ for 4 hours afterward.

 

[Ring 6]

One of the things you said in that post really stood out, and I think it's part of the reason we have trouble convicting criminals. The prosecution does not have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" to convict. They only have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm sure there are plenty of jurors who see it the wrong way also.

You are correct, I misspoke.

 

[1960Pats]

What is it with you little right wing internet gladiators that, when it's clear you were wrong, double down on trying to just find a way to feel technically correct?

Now that you opened the floodgates I'm sure your fellow lefties will chime in too. I can't wait.

Wouldn't it be funny if Ben Shapiro ran for POTUS and won? He actually has some support with young people.

Btw, those "little right wing gladiators" got it right in 2016 and, apparently, you feel that you lost. Get over it. But if you want to whine about politics, here's the perfect place...

The Briefing Room - A Conservative Discussion Forum

 

[1960Pats]

Sorry dude, there's a guy on here that trades on that fairly reasonable sounding proposition, and he's the local Hydrox/Cold-eez king... and is still trying to contort every positive-sounding observation into proof positive. Had to put him on ignore, but I shortened the warning track for these bozos recently... all that to say "I'm an engineer" is sadly even less of a be-all end-all here than out there in the world, & you have the Hydroxymorons to thank

Maybe if you're a PE, that changes it? Imunno.

This isn't the first time I've seen you talk about putting someone on ignore because they didn't agree with you. That explains a lot.

 

[fnordcircle]

That’s not a technicality. If someone is going to lecture me about “innocent until proven guilty” and “the American way” then they demonstrate tremendous ignorance of the criminal justice system when they claim someone was “found innocent” in court.

If you’re too ignorant to realize this, which it seems you are, I can’t help you.

You knew what he meant when he said 'found innocent', but because you have no leg to stand on you're going to try to make a simple mistype into an IQ indicator.

It's every bit as stupid and petty as 99% of the stuff you've posted here over the years so at least it's on brand.

You're just trying to distract from your rush to hope these people were guilty because it fits the worldview of their type you have.

 

[fnordcircle]

Now that you opened the floodgates I'm sure your fellow lefties will chime in too. I can't wait.

Wouldn't it be funny if Ben Shapiro ran for POTUS and won? He actually has some support with young people.

Btw, those "little right wing gladiators" got it right in 2016 and, apparently, you feel that you lost. Get over it. But if you want to whine about politics, here's the perfect place...

The Briefing Room - A Conservative Discussion Forum

Your response to my comment is a semi-erotic fan fiction about little Benny Shapiro winning POTUS?

I guess that's normal, you guys have to live in a factless alternate reality to maintain your brittle worldview so sure, have at it.

 

[Jlaff]

What a bizarre five minutes reading through that was. So much misuse and misunderstand of basic stuff.
Everyone is legally innocent of everything until proven guilty because you have to be proven guilty to be legally guilty.
The presumption of innocence applies solely and exclusively to the jurors in a trial. Anyone else can presume whatever they want. But the jurors must presume innocence until guilt is proven to them beyond a shadow of a doubt meaning no one can be legally found guilty without absolute certainty on the part of the jury.
Unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are legally innocent but legally innocent is not the same as being factually innocent.

OJ Simpson appears to be factually guilty, but legally he is innocent of committing the murders because the one shot that is allowed at convicting him resulted in the one jury tasked to doing it, ruling they had reasonable doubt.
He is legally liable for the deaths because a majority, not unanimity of jurors felt it was more likely than not that he was responsible.

As far as it relates to this case everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want. There is no requirement to have an opinion that is guided by innocent until proven guilty unless you are a juror. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, except people in a position to act on their poorly informed view. No one has sufficient facts to judge their guilt and no one need have every fact to have an opinion.

I actually really like this analysis. I was always taught "courts do not rule an accused 'innocent' only 'not guilty'". But if you start from a point of innocence, and the court's ruling does nothing to alter that, well, I guess you're left with still innocent. The technical answer is still of course that you can't be ruled innocent.