MWF
Well, I'm not sure anything will "make sense" to you, since by all
available evidence, you're not firing on all four cylinders, the elevator
doesn't make it to the top floor, you're a couple of sandwiches shy of a
picnic, etc. etc.
But some may be able to follow, and there are the remarks at the end
to be addressed, and a good build up is helpful just to show how pathetic
your "reasoning" is.
Macgill;
Let's see what were are saying;
This guy didn't kill them - Criminal get ou of jail free card
MWF
To convict in a criminal court requires a lot of things, but two of
interest here;
1.) proof beyond a reasonable doubt
2.) unanimous consensus among the jury that that standard has been
met.
As to point one, as it is explained to a jury here in California; If
the jury sees two POSSIBLE interpretations of the evidence, one leading to
the defendants guilt, and one to his innocence, then however unlikely the
line of reasoning leading to the defendants innocence may seem, they MUST
find the defendant NOT GUILTY.
Note that this is a finding of NOT GUILTY, not "innocent", and the
difference is more than just semantic. It means that the high standard of
proof the state must meet was not, in the judgement of the jury, met. It is
not a conclusive finding that the defendant "didn't do it"--only that the
state has failed in its burden of proof.
Macgill;
this guy did kill them - civil pay us the money SHOW ME DE MONEY...
MWF
The standards in a civil trial, as they differ from the criminal
trial;
1.) preponderance of the evidence
2.) 2/3 of jury, i.e. 9 of 12, sufficient for a verdict.
On number one: The jury is to weigh the evidence, and if there is any
slight weight in either direction, then they must find for the side with the
preponderance, no matter how slight that preponderance is to that side.
And only 2/3 of the jury needs to agree.
Macgill
I believe this is double jeopardy and that the lower courts need to
take a bow to the Bill of Rights.
MWF
Double jeopardy applies only to criminal trials where the defendant
is placed in jeopardy of his freedom or even his life. Any criminal defendant
can be drug into civil court by his victim on the civil tort which is
analogous to the crime he committed--but most crooks who can be traced to a
specific crime are also financial turnips and not worth the effort.
Macgill
I don't really feel like we have them anymore.......Nor are we following
the constitution.
MWF
"Them" what? Constitutional rights? If we have lost any of our
rights, or had them eroded significantly, then the members of the court most
instrumental in doing so are Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
The most conservative---and most religious, (and most defiantly also
Christian) of the members.
Macgill
Most have been redefined it to mean something else.
MWF
And who are these "most" you are speaking of?
Macgill
They have been reinterpreted by the Liberal thought of the day....
MWF
The main architect of the dismantling of our constitutional rights
has been Rhenquist, who along with Saclia and Thomas are all somewhere to the
right of Attila the Hun. And as noted, most definitely Christian.
Macgill
and near recent past. Instead of amending them we've just stopped following
them...which in actuality is far more effective for abolishing them
because people can still see them there (no alarm goes off)and thus hold
to the idea they are in tact (wishful thinking) but in actuality they
have become merely shadows of a former time when people understood what
they meant. Today they are phantoms now being discarded on the ash heap
of U S history...
MWF
Well, thank your conservative Christian buddies on the court. The
most recent real "liberals" were Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.
Compare their votes on matters of constitutional rights against
Rehenquist and the others, and tell me again who has been dismantling your
rights.
Macgill
Right or wrong in the OJ case he was found not guilty of Murder.
He was found not guilty.................How can He then be found guilty
of the wrongful deaths of those two?
MWF
You are not found "guilty" in civil court. A tort may also be a
crime, but when sued under the tort action in a civil court the only finding
is liability for money damages. You can't be put in jail or deprived of any
other civil rights. Only money--and the plaintiff must still assert his
rights, the courts system assumes that people found liable will pay when the
court orders them to, if they don't then the plaintiff must go back to court
to pursue further action. If OJ says he's broke, then it could be a long
drawn out battle while the plaintiff attempts to prove otherwise.
Macgill
We are not consistent here. This is
a great example of a contradiction. I don't care if we have separated
civil from criminal it still is inconsistent. OJ should be in prison for
murder and pay the wrongful death suit or he should have to do
neither.................this is the type of thing that happens when a
society embraces the notion of relative truth....
MWF
No, it just demonstrates that you don't know jack about the law.
Yours for higher education;
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
==================================================================== For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.