Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[Warren Dew]

I have never heard rEv claim he was intelligent.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1448618

A somewhat tongue in cheek remark, one feels...

So what you're saying is that he doesn't think he's smarter than Coito, after all?

[pErvinalia]

What I think is that both you and Texans don't know what "self-defence" is.

So you know better than 26 million people do you?

Megalomania much?

Lol. Self defence is defence in aid of the SELF. Shooting someone in the back because they allegedly stole money off you isn't defending yourself. Texans are idiots, clearly.

Self defense includes under its ambit the defense of others, and it also can encompass defense of property which is part of the "self." If all you have is 20 dollars with which to feed yourself, and someone steals that 20 dollars, he places your life and safety in jeopardy by robbing you of the resources necessary for survival. Or to be more basic, if all you have is one loaf of bread or morsel of food between you and starvation, someone who tries to steal it is trying to kill you and defending that morsel as if your life depends on it...perhaps using lethal force, is entirely justifiable.

Except this guy was paying for sex. Hardly on death's door.

Extending that reasoning to other less vital property or situations is a decision that the community gets to make, and its decision about when lethal force is authorized reflects the beliefs, values and concerns of the particular society involved.

Yeah, and Texans are clearly idiots.

If you don't want to get shot in Texas, don't steal stuff at night. How much more simple can it get?

There's no doubt that Texans are pretty simple.

[pErvinalia]

I have never heard rEv claim he was intelligent.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1448618

All I said was that I was the "smartest". Doesn't mean I am intelligent. Of course, I am. But your example just shows how lacking in intelligence you apparently are.

[JimC]

I have never heard rEv claim he was intelligent.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1448618

A somewhat tongue in cheek remark, one feels...

So what you're saying is that he doesn't think he's smarter than Coito, after all?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[pErvinalia]

I think most of us here think we are pretty intelligent. Warren is just looking for something to nitpick about.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, forensics nowadays is pretty good, so when rape victims promptly report, there are rape kits which can demonstrate elements of the case and corroborative factors.

No forensics exist for determining consent, I doubt even you could perfectly read minds and have perfect lie detectors it would help much

Of course there is nothing, yet, that can read minds to determine consent or not consent. But your statement of the obvious that "even you" (you too, Mr. Jonno). It's the fact that we cannot "perfectly" determine things like consent that we have a burden of proof. Since "even you" can't read minds, we can't have accused criminals convicted on mere say so, can we?

But, there can be objective evidence that tends to show consent. For example, if witnesses testify that the woman in question was "all over the guy" in the hours leading up to the alleged rape, and she was, say, grabbing his crotch in public, kissing him in public, grinding on the dance-floor in mimicked sexual encounters, that could, arguably, be evidence that she was interested in engaging in sexual conduct with the guy. That would not be "perfect" evidence of consent -- but, I think it is relevant to the question. There can also be evidence that tends to show lack of consent, like if the guy was following her around and she was rejecting his advances -- if she pushed him away and said "don't touch me asshole!" -- and witnesses testified to that, then that would tend to show that she wasn't interested in being near the guy, much less fucking him. Also, if there is evidence of damage to the vaginal or other areas -- bruising, evidence of restraints or marks on wrists or necks -- while these are not "required" or "necessary" elements of rape, they certainly can be evidence of rape.

Determining what someone was thinking using objective evidence is very difficult, but we have to use whatever objective evidence we have to evidence that. Like, determining whether a person "consented" to a contract -- we can't read a person's mind, but if there is a contract case we use objective evidence. The best evidence is if someone signed a written contract. However, if there are ambiguities, if there wasn't a written contract, but there was a verbal contract, then we have to look at the parties' behavior and words (pursuant to testimony) to determine what their intent was.

Not guilty = innocent no matter how you want to play with words. This is no such thing as not proven in English and US law (Scotland is obviously different).

Nope. Not guilty = not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You're leaving off the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bit. In English and US criminal law, the burden of proof has long been on the prosecution/crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If guilt is not proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT -- i.e. even if guilt is "probable" --- the verdict is not guilty.

Almost all rape cases are one persons word against another and within the restrictions of law the prosecution/defence job is to discredit (ie make the other person appear as 'confused' ie a liar).

In any case of conflicting testimony, the witnesses are against each other. That's just a truism. However, rape cases are generally not PURELY one person's word against another. But, where a person's word is critical, then obviously, evidence that the person is lying is critical.

I don't have a solution for it but it doesn't change the fact that innocent until proven guilty means liar until proven otherwise for the victim

No -- this is just ignorance of the law. If the state accuses Mr. Jonno of robbing a liquor store, and I don't call the prosecution or the liquor store owner a liar until proven otherwise. There is evidence against Mr. Jonno that the prosecution believes establishes probable cause to hold a trial. The witnesses are called. The evidence is introduced. If the jury finds proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Mr. Jonno that robbed the liquor store, then they convict. If not, they acquit. It is not necessarily a determination that the store clerk is or is not a liar (it could be a determination that the store clerk is a liar, if evidence is adduced that the store clerk made a knowingly false statement). However, the store clerk could have honestly thought it was Mr. Jonno, but been mistaken. That's not "lying." Also, maybe the cops had it in for Mr. Jonno, and framed him. All sorts of things can be the case.

This is no different in a rape case, other than rape is a much more viscerally objectionable crime than robbing liquor stores. A woman could accuse Mr. Jonno of rape, and Mr. Jonno could say "no it wasn't me" or "no, I didn't rape her, but she consensually fucked like a French whore." Who knows what the truth is? But, if we hold a trial, and the jury finds that the prosecution can't prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt, then they have to acquit. It doesn't mean the woman is a liar. She may well be a liar, as people sometimes do lie, including women about rape (no matter how much we would like to think otherwise).

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope, random selection from the voting records, you get the first twelve names that come up, no voir dire, no preemptory challenges, no elimination for cause, just twelve randomly-selected citizens who have to ALL agree you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Challenging for cause makes sense. Like if a KKK member is randomly selected to be on the jury of a KKK member accused of beating up a bisexual, Catholic, black man who was seen kissing a WASP woman who was the sister of a Klan member.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck off, it's not self-defence to shoot someone in the back as they make off with money gained from a broken contractual agreement.

True that. That sounds like murder, probably second degree.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck off, it's not self-defence to shoot someone in the back as they make off with money gained from a broken contractual agreement.

Evidently in Texas it is. That's a good reason not to do so don't you think?

I don't think it is. What makes you think in Texas you can lawfully shoot someone in the back for breaking a contact?

[Coito ergo sum]

What I think is that both you and Texans don't know what "self-defence" is.

So you know better than 26 million people do you?

Megalomania much?

Lol. Self defence is defence in aid of the SELF. Shooting someone in the back because they allegedly stole money off you isn't defending yourself. Texans are idiots, clearly.

Which Texans said that shooting someone in the back because they allegedly stole money is defending oneself?

[pErvinalia]

I dunno. I'm just going by what Seth is telling me.

[Coito ergo sum]

I dunno. I'm just going by what Seth is telling me.

Oh, well, if Seth wrote that in Texas it is lawful to intentionally shoot someone in the back after they breach a contract with you, then, well, he's wrong. Not sure why you would attribute Seth's view to all Texans though. Not sure how "smart" that sort of extrapolation is. Folks can make their own judgment about that, though.

[pErvinalia]

Well clearly the judiciary thinks it's fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement and call it self-defence. What point are you trying to make?

[MrJonno]

Doesn't the US have a constitution that is meant to stop things like legalising murder?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well clearly the judiciary thinks it's fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement and call it self-defence. What point are you trying to make?

On what basis do you make the allegation that "clearly the judiciary thinks it is fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement?" Where do you get that?