NationStates Jolt Archive

Jacobson v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540)
Sorrells v. United States I believe as well.

From that link(which you're apparently only getting around to reading now):
Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications, [503 U.S. 540, 541]
Quite a bit more than "Wanna buy some joints?", wouldn't you say?
and the Government has failed to carry its burden of proving predisposition independent of its attention. The preinvestigation evidence - the Bare Boys magazines - merely indicates a generic inclination to act within a broad range, not all of which is criminal.
Oh look, what he was doing wasn't as clearly illegal as buying drugs. Furthermore, Jacobson was acting within the law when he received the magazines, and he testified that he did not know that they would depict minors. As for the evidence gathered during the investigation, Jacobson's responses to the many communications prior to the criminal act were, at most, indicative of certain personal inclinations, and would not support the inference that Jacobson was predisposed to violate the Child Protection Act.
Well let this be a lesson, don't arrest people who like to get high, because that doesn't mean they do so in an illegal fashion.

Sorrells v. United States I believe as well.

Ah Sorrells? Let's see what the majority in Sorrells says shall we?

It is clear that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding that the act for which defendant was prosecuted was instigated by the prohibition agent, that it was the creature of his purpose, that defendant had no previous disposition to commit it but was an industrious, law-abiding citizen, and that the agent lured defendant, otherwise innocent, to its commission by repeated and persistent solicitation in which he succeeded by taking advantage of the sentiment aroused by reminiscences of their experiences as companions in arms in the World War.


Gee, that again seems like more than mere offering, doesn't it?

I claim to know they are likely guilty because I watched an episode of the show. You haven't, so you're arguments are based upon ignorance, strawmans aside.

Ha. That's hilarious. I haven't watched the show? On what do you base this assessment. It's funny that you mention ignorance while ignorantly claiming to know my television habits better than I myself do.

I have seen several of the installments, and I'd say based on the show they appear to be guilty. However, it's wildly edited and since I can't know what they edited out and, by fact, NBC can't even be sure what was edited out since the produce said they often don't get full transcripts of the conversations.

Within the context of this discussion the pedophiles here are the kind that get arrested. What's your point?



Innocent until proven guilty is not equatable with what everyone demands here. It's never meant that, it will never mean that, and no amount of crying will change that fact.



They're innocent! (Absolute statement). They're guilty / likely guilty! (Mounds of evidence buttress this absolute statement).

Where's the evidence they are innocent again?

Innocent and not guilty are not equal. Who is claiming they are certainly innocent or even likely to be innocent?

Ah Sorrells? Let's see what the majority in Sorrells says shall we?



Gee, that again seems like more than mere offering, doesn't it?

Hmmm... we all happen to notice the same thing about the cases within about five seconds of reading it. It's so clear he didn't actually read that case. How embarrassing that would be if he realized how he just bolstered your point.

Within the context of this discussion the pedophiles here are the kind that get arrested. What's your point?
It's a pet peeve of mine.



Innocent until proven guilty is not equatable with what everyone demands here. It's never meant that, it will never mean that, and no amount of crying will change that fact.
Yes, because what everyone is demanding(if you are an indicative) is that someone prove a negative



They're innocent! (Absolute statement). They're guilty / likely guilty! (Mounds of evidence buttress this absolute statement).

Where's the evidence they are innocent again?

There doesn't need to be evidence that they're innocent. Until they are convicted in a court of law they are innocent. Nothing you can say will ever change that fact, nor have you provided a single reason why we should ignore it.

Ha. That's hilarious. I haven't watched the show? On what do you base this assessment. It's funny that you mention ignorance while ignorantly claiming to know my television habits better than I myself do.

Because otherwise you're just blind if you can't see the BFMR of evidence that lends to 'likely guilty' and in some cases (confessions ect.) 'holy fucking guilty'. And since you can read what I'm writing and also respond coherently(ish) I'm not going to assume you are blind.

I have seen several of the installments, and I'd say based on the show they appear to be guilty. However, it's wildly edited and since I can't know what they edited out and, by fact, NBC can't even be sure what was edited out since the produce said they often don't get full transcripts of the conversations.

"I can't know what they edited, so therefore it is spurious." "Citation from pissed-off producer with interest in the case." nonsequitor.

Ah Sorrells? Let's see what the majority in Sorrells says shall we?

Gee, that again seems like more than mere offering, doesn't it?
Which still doesn't void the points I raised to the case you cited.

And great, you can quote the facts of the case. Let's cite an actual opinion shall we?
The enforcement of this policy calls upon the court, in every instance where alleged entrapment of a defendant is brought to its notice, to ascertain the facts, to appraise their effect upon the administration of justice, and to make such order with respect to the further prosecution of the cause as the circumstances require.

Hmmm... we all happen to notice the same thing about the cases within about five seconds of reading it. It's so clear he didn't actually read that case. How embarrassing that would be if he realized how he just bolstered your point.

see, I just don't understand this. My position has been merely offering is not entrapment.

I get a case that says merely offering is not entrapment. He pulls two cases out, one in which they spent 2 and a half years on the matter, and the other in which they played on his sympathies as a veteran. Neither one of which is merely an offer.

And in fact in one of them they come right and explicitly say "this was not merely an offer".

I don't understand this. I don't get why someone would be so willfully proven wrong time and time again other than just say "I was wrong". I can't understand this mentality. It's been proven by case law, merely offering is not entrapment. In both of those cases the justices come out and explicitly say this was more than merely an offer.

I just don't understand where he thinks he's going with this.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

It's gonna appear like I'm being an asshole when I say this, but know that's not the intent: but so what?

Yes, because what everyone is demanding(if you are an indicative) is that someone prove a negative

No, they're not; at least I'm not.

There doesn't need to be evidence that they're innocent. Until they are convicted in a court of law they are innocent. Nothing you can say will ever change that fact, nor have you provided a single reason why we should ignore it.

reductio ad absurdum: No one should be arrested until they are proven guilty. Denied.

Which still doesn't void the points I raised to the case you cited.

And the points you made are utterly irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.

Do you even know what you're trying to argue by now?

And great, you can quote the facts of the case. Let's cite an actual opinion shall we?

That was the opinion. You know, the parts underneath where it says "held", that's usually a good clue that it's the opinion.

And what case are you citing from, and how does this in any way invalidate what I've said? I really don't think you even know what your argument is anymore.

Grow some thicker skin, we all get called names eventually, not that I've called you anything because talking to you is antithetical to pleasure.
That isn't something he should have to put up with, try to debate without insulting him. I doesn't do much to prove you point.


Within the context of this discussion the pedophiles here are the kind that get arrested. What's your point?

That paedophiles aren't evil people, while it may not refute your point it is worth mentioning as given the number of people on NSG there maybe a paedophile (I think I remember one from while ago) and we should acknowledge that feelings are not a crime, although acting on them admittedly are.

I claim to know they are likely guilty because I watched an episode of the show. You haven't, so you're arguments are based upon ignorance, strawmans aside.

Try and refute him based on his points and not "I'm better than you".

It's gonna appear like I'm being an asshole when I say this, but know that's not the intent: but so what?
I was just reminded of it when you mentioned someone being proven not guilty of being a paedophile.



No, they're not; at least I'm not.

So what are you asking for?


reductio ad absurdum: No one should be arrested until they are proven guilty. Denied.

Maybe you quoted the wrong post, but where did I say anything about anyone being arrested?

Reading things that aren't there. Denied.

reductio ad absurdum: No one should be arrested until they are proven guilty. Denied.

He saying that you can't assume their guilty until they have been tried and found guilty. This is true and not in reference to arrest but sentencing etc.

Because otherwise you're just blind if you can't see the BFMR of evidence that lends to 'likely guilty' and in some cases (confessions ect.) 'holy fucking guilty'. And since you can read what I'm writing and also respond coherently(ish) I'm not going to assume you are blind.

I said they're likely guilty. Now you're not just making up whether I've seen something or not and jumping to making up my beliefs too. How useful. Oh, wait.

Meanwhile, likely guilty isn't good enough to justify destroying the lives of these men. And according to the law, it's also not good enough to try them in some instances. They should be protected from being exposed in this way until they are convicted. The reasons for doing so are obvious.


"I can't know what they edited, so therefore it is spurious." "Citation from pissed-off producer with interest in the case." nonsequitor.

Amusing. So basically, you're ignoring every reason to be skeptical because you really, really want them to be guilty, but it's everyone else who is being illogical. Can you hear me laughing through my hand? I'm trying to muffle it. The producer is evidence of the problems in what is supposed to pass for journalism here. There is a reason why as a journalist you're not supposed to pay your sources. It's because it gives them a reason to make sure they continue to give you what you want.

The show never denied they were paying PJ, which suggest they do. Anyone with a passing knowledge of journalism should recognize the breach of ethics there.

Meanwhile, the "pissed off" producer swore of the show before they had any reason to be pissed off. They left the show four months before they were fired. That's a fact. So that producer who was responsible enough to be put on the show by NBC, pissed of NBC by refusing to be a part of it. Not the other way around. You need to get your facts straight.

Let's cite an actual opinion shall we?The enforcement of this policy calls upon the court, in every instance where alleged entrapment of a defendant is brought to its notice, to ascertain the facts, to appraise their effect upon the administration of justice, and to make such order with respect to the further prosecution of the cause as the circumstances require.

Oh thank you. Oh thank you so much. You just made my day TPH, you really did. I actually had a real strong laugh at that, I really needed that chuckle.

That little quote of yours that you feel like it proves something?

Yeah...

That's from the dissent. Oh that's so funny. That is the epitome of everything I'm talking about, when amateurs try to argue law. It's fantastic, it's brilliant in its absurdity.

You tried to get support from your argument by quoting the fucking dissent. It's fantastic.

That isn't something he should have to put up with, try to debate without insulting him. I doesn't do much to prove you point.

In an ideal world he shouldn't, but I don't see and unicorns and streams made of candy.

That paedophiles aren't evil people, while it may not refute your point it is worth mentioning as given the number of people on NSG there maybe a paedophile (I think I remember one from while ago) and we should acknowledge that feelings are not a crime, although acting on them admittedly are.

We will not entertain this debate. There was a prohibition against it already put up by the moderation staff when NAMBLA / WhoTheFuckEver came onto the boards and defended pedophilia.

Try and refute him based on his points and not "I'm better than you".

If neither you nor he read, then that's not my problem.

It's gonna appear like I'm being an asshole when I say this, but know that's not the intent: but so what?



No, they're not; at least I'm not.



reductio ad absurdum: No one should be arrested until they are proven guilty. Denied.

Um, you don't appear to understand how being arrested works. You are proven guilty after arrest, not before. Before evidence is collected until they have enough that they think they can prove guilt. No one is "proven guilty" prior to arrest in the US. That would be absurd.

I was just reminded of it when you mentioned someone being proven not guilty of being a paedophile.


Clarify please. Because my position is that within the context of this discussion (these pedophiles being the 'bad kind') that acknowledging your stance is rather irrelevant.

So what are you asking for?


I'm asking that unsubstantiated claims be well, substantiated so Occam isn't dulled.

Maybe you quoted the wrong post, but where did I say anything about anyone being arrested?

Reading things that aren't there. Denied.

That's your logic being used to reach an absurd result, ergo it is a fallacious argument.

The cops who arrest them are. Maybe you should watch the fucking thing before coming here spouting bullshit?

Except that, according to the lawsuit by one of Dateline's own producers, those cops recieved payment for being on Dateline and for helping Dateline's TCAP. That alone contaminates them.

If neither you nor he read, then that's not my problem.

First your argument is that I've not seen the show. Now it's that I don't read. Come on, you've got more ad hominems up your sleeve. I know you do. That'll really make your argument convincing.

In an ideal world he shouldn't, but I don't see and unicorns and streams made of candy.

There don't need to be. that is why NSG has moderation.


We will not entertain this debate. There was a prohibition against it already put up by the moderation staff when NAMBLA / WhoTheFuckEver came onto the boards and defended pedophilia.
It wasn't meant as a debate it was more of a request for common courtesy.


If neither you nor he read, then that's not my problem.
I was asking you to keep your arguements relavent.

That's your logic being used to reach an absurd result, ergo it is a fallacious argument.

The absurd result being they are innocent until they are proven guilty? Seriously, you could randomly string together words and make a more credible argument. Reduction to the absurd would require that he not be citing the very basis of law in the US.

I said they're likely guilty. Now you're not just making up whether I've seen something or not and jumping to making up my beliefs too. How useful. Oh, wait.

Meanwhile, likely guilty isn't good enough to justify destroying the lives of these men. And according to the law, it's also not good enough to try them in some instances. They should be protected from being exposed in this way until they are convicted. The reasons for doing so are obvious.

Their lives are not destroyed because they were arrested for something. If they're not guilty and if the ridiculous and unsubstantiated reasons as to why TCAP is a bad show are true, then all is right with the world. There is no constitutional protection against having one of your illegal acts videotaped and broadcasted because you don't want the world to know you've done something wrong.

Amusing. So basically, you're ignoring every reason to be skeptical because you really, really want them to be guilty, but it's everyone else who is being illogical. Can you hear me laughing through my hand? I'm trying to muffle it. The producer is evidence of the problems in what is supposed to pass for journalism here. There is a reason why as a journalist you're not supposed to pay your sources. It's because it gives them a reason to make sure they continue to give you what you want.

Strawman: I don't want them to be guilty because that means they wanted to harm children, and I like children to not be harmed. Fail.

You're being illogical because Occam says you are: Your situation calls for an almost infinite number of assumptions to be true while not buttressing one of them with any evidence whatsoever. My position, that they are likely guilty, is of course reinforced with the evidence you can get from a simple casual viewing of the show. See the difference?

The show never denied they were paying PJ, which suggest they do. Anyone with a passing knowledge of journalism should recognize the breach of ethics there.

Because PJ is a private organization that needs funding to operate. Big difference between that and paying a police officer.

Meanwhile, the "pissed off" producer swore of the show before they had any reason to be pissed off. They left the show four months before they were fired. That's a fact. So that producer who was responsible enough to be put on the show by NBC, pissed of NBC by refusing to be a part of it. Not the other way around. You need to get your facts straight.

Allegedly.

First your argument is that I've not seen the show. Now it's that I don't read. Come on, you've got more ad hominems up your sleeve. I know you do. That'll really make your argument convincing.

Those aren't ad hominems, try again.

The absurd result being they are innocent until they are proven guilty? Seriously, you could randomly string together words and make a more credible argument. Reduction to the absurd would require that he not be citing the very basis of law in the US.

The absurd being that the ideological statement ought to be taken literally beyond its original purpose; that being you are allowed a fair trail and no punishment will be rendered until proof of your guilt has been established. Otherwise we cannot arrest suspects because they are innocent until proven guilty. Hence, fallacy.

Oh thank you. Oh thank you so much. You just made my day TPH, you really did. I actually had a real strong laugh at that, I really needed that chuckle.

That little quote of yours that you feel like it proves something?

Yeah...

That's from the dissent. Oh that's so funny. That is the epitome of everything I'm talking about, when amateurs try to argue law. It's fantastic, it's brilliant in its absurdity.

You tried to get support from your argument by quoting the fucking dissent. It's fantastic.
You win, I win, and water is wet.
You are right, it is the dissenting opinion.
I am right because the dissenting opinion by Roberts did not disagree that it was entrapment, he disagreed with the conclusion of the court in the determination of entrapment and that it was sent back to be retried.

Fine.

Regardless, the people showing up for To Catch a Predator have already crossed enough of a line to be arrested and further investigated. End of discussion.

There don't need to be. that is why NSG has moderation.

The mods have also told people on numerous occasions to grow thicker skin.

It wasn't meant as a debate it was more of a request for common courtesy.

Assumes that people find doing such a thing a part of common courtesy, something which will start up said debate.

I was asking you to keep your arguements relavent.

They have been.

Clarify please. Because my position is that within the context of this discussion (these pedophiles being the 'bad kind') that acknowledging your stance is rather irrelevant.
As I said, people assuming that paedophile=child molester or that being a paedophile is a crime irritates me ever so slightly. Since it wasn't clear from the post I quoted that you were referring to "the bad kind" I thought it was worth mentioning again.



I'm asking that unsubstantiated claims be well, substantiated so Occam isn't dulled.
You mentioned those claims in another post, I think. *goes to check*



That's your logic being used to reach an absurd result, ergo it is a fallacious argument.

No, that's you reading words that aren't there, ergo........actually I don't know what to conclude from you having hallucinations. Perhaps you should see a doctor.

My problems with the show:

1)Perverted Justice is NOT an authority of any kind. It is a volunteer group, and from what I see of the show, a vigilante group. They are not properly trained, and as we just saw, their "evidence" got a whole lot of cases thrown out -- cases that very well MAY have been viable had the authorities handled it alone.

2) This kind of show is nothing more than the Roman Gladiatorial events -- let's entertain the masses by destroying the lives of people whether or not they are legally innocent or guilty.

Their lives are not destroyed because they were arrested for something.

No, their lives are ruined because it was broadcasted and their reputations where ruined. Being accused of paedophilia does ruin peoples lives.

Regardless, the people showing up for To Catch a Predator have already crossed enough of a line to be arrested and further investigated. End of discussion.

Since the DA in the initial article declined to prosecute I would say that's not nearly the end. In fact, considering the evidence was outside proper evidentiary chain, I would say they should NOT be arrested, for that reason.

The absurd being that the ideological statement ought to be taken literally beyond its original purpose; that being you are allowed a fair trail and no punishment will be rendered until proof of your guilt has been established. Otherwise we cannot arrest suspects because they are innocent until proven guilty. Hence, fallacy.

People are arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime. People are convicted when it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. This is the bedrock of the US legal system, and any legal system where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

As I said, people assuming that paedophile=child molester or that being a paedophile is a crime irritates me ever so slightly. Since it wasn't clear from the post I quoted that you were referring to "the bad kind" I thought it was worth mentioning again.

Your issue is that a word has been morphed to mean what it does not in common lexicon. As much as I can sympathize your stance is really a waste of your own precious time because it is impossible to undue what has already been done.

You mentioned those claims in another post, I think. *goes to check*


Indeed.

No, that's you reading words that aren't there, ergo........actually I don't know what to conclude from you having hallucinations. Perhaps you should see a doctor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Your argument fits the bill.

The absurd being that the ideological statement ought to be taken literally beyond its original purpose; that being you are allowed a fair trail and no punishment will be rendered until proof of your guilt has been established. Otherwise we cannot arrest suspects because they are innocent until proven guilty. Hence, fallacy.

that only assumes that the standard for conviction is the same for the standard of arrest, which it of course is not, and would be rather stupid if it is.

Those aren't ad hominems, try again.
They are: you are saying that his position isn't valid based on your claim (not proven) that he hasn't watched the show.

Grow some thicker skin, we all get called names eventually, not that I've called you anything because talking to you is antithetical to pleasure.



Unsubstantiated claims: They're not guilty because they are innocent. PJ is incompetent. America is a Democracy and due process is being invalidated. That being publicly humiliated is illegal. NBC is tampering with evidence.

See everything above? Prove it, or stop posting.

There is a thing called slander and another thing called libel. When you humiliate people publicly by plasting their faces on Television with the label "pedophile", without them having had a jury trial first, you've done something that is illegal.

My problems with the show:

1)Perverted Justice is NOT an authority of any kind. It is a volunteer group, and from what I see of the show, a vigilante group. They are not properly trained, and as we just saw, their "evidence" got a whole lot of cases thrown out -- cases that very well MAY have been viable had the authorities handled it alone.

2) This kind of show is nothing more than the Roman Gladiatorial events -- let's entertain the masses by destroying the lives of people whether or not they are legally innocent or guilty.

Ditto. Especially the second point. I can't see NBC airing follow ups in which they apologise to all the people who weren't convicted, not that that would do an awful lot of good.

No, their lives are ruined because it was broadcasted and their reputations where ruined. Being accused of paedophilia does ruin peoples lives.

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.

Their lives are not destroyed because they were arrested for something. If they're not guilty and if the ridiculous and unsubstantiated reasons as to why TCAP is a bad show are true, then all is right with the world. There is no constitutional protection against having one of your illegal acts videotaped and broadcasted because you don't want the world to know you've done something wrong.

Their lives are destroyed because they were arrested for childmolestion or soliciting it on television. See, that's what a strawman is. No one is saying that they shouldn't be arrested. We're saying they should not be put on television until they are proven guilty.

Again, you're assuming they are guilty here. If they had been proven guilty, no one would be objecting.



Strawman: I don't want them to be guilty because that means they wanted to harm children, and I like children to not be harmed. Fail.

Hilarious. No, them being guilty is crucial to your argument. Mentioning it is not a strawman. Again, you could make a better argument just posting random words. Your use of the fallacies is practically random.



You're being illogical because Occam says you are: Your situation calls for an almost infinite number of assumptions to be true while not buttressing one of them with any evidence whatsoever. My position, that they are likely guilty, is of course reinforced with the evidence you can get from a simple casual viewing of the show. See the difference?

No, it doesn't. That the show is edited is not an assumption. That's a fact. That even the district attorney found flaws in ther process is not an assumption. That's a fact. That the district attorney found so many flaws that he refused to prosecute is a fact. That the shows pays PJ is a fact. That the show relies on viewership to continue is a fact.

These are facts. Refusing to consider them is fallacious.

Facts we don't have. Unedited footage. Unedited transcripts. None. Not one.

Everyone believes there is a huge potential for them being guilty here. That's not the point. The potential for innocence makes what they are doing unethical. That's not a question. It's a fact.

Meanwhile, stop trying to apply the rules of logic. You're just embarrassing yourself. You've used almost every reference incorrectly to the point of being laughable. If you don't care enough to figure out what things mean before you attempt to apply them, why should we? So either actually figure out how to properly apply Occam's, stop posting, or insert random clucking sounds so we can all be entertained.



Because PJ is a private organization that needs funding to operate. Big difference between that and paying a police officer.

You don't get the point here. They are paying them as a source. In journalism this is a breach of ethics.


Allegedly.

Not allegedly. Neither the show nor the producer dispute that fact. When your argument requires that you ignore facts, then you fail. You know facts like the show is edited for entertainment, that the producer left the show because of issues she had with how it was being handled, the PJ is paid for their participation in the show. These are facts. No one is disputing them except you.

There is a thing called slander and another thing called libel. When you humiliate people publicly by plasting their faces on Television with the label "pedophile", without them having had a jury trial first, you've done something that is illegal.

um, no, not exactly....you are confusing guilty as a matter of law and guilty as a matter of fact.

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.

Not true.

People are arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime. People are convicted when it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. This is the bedrock of the US legal system, and any legal system where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Bingo. People are arrested in the suspicion of guilt, not because people think they are innocent. People are held in custody to prevent escape, not because people think they need to be protected from being innocent. Innocence until proven guilty does not mean what everyone here has been saying it means.

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.

You can't be proven innocent. You can only not be found guilty. In the case of these individuals that are no longer being charged, do you agree that they are innocent and no one should hold anything against them? No. You've already said no. And you know what, they'll never be proven "more" innocent because they are not being charged. That's as innocent as you get in law.

Yes, perfectly legal, and in fact, that's how people get busted for soliciting prosecution ALL THE TIME.
No. It would be perfectly legal if the guy asked the cop "Will you have sex with me if I pay you?" or if the cop was a man and a woman approached him saying "I'll have sex with you for money."

You can't be proven innocent. You can only not be found guilty. In the case of these individuals that are no longer being charged, do you agree that they are innocent and no one should hold anything against them? No. You've already said no. And you know what, they'll never be proven "more" innocent because they are not being charged. That's as innocent as you get in law.

If you are not guilty you are innocent, thus it is proven and your issue with my choice or wording and not with the logic itself is rendered irrelevant. Thank you.

There is a thing called slander and another thing called libel. When you humiliate people publicly by plasting their faces on Television with the label "pedophile", without them having had a jury trial first, you've done something that is illegal.

It's unethical, but it's not illegal. And if they've actually collected the evidence properly, it's not unethical. The problem is there are violations of ethics here that we know about. Paying PJ is unethical. It's a longstanding ethics problem in journalism. You do not pay your sources.

Nope. Never asked that.



Not my fault you've never seen an episode of the show, because otherwise the Big Fucking Mountain Range (TM) of evidence would be rather blatantly staring you in the face. The trial will sort out who is guilty and who is not, as it always has with a non-appreciable margin of error.



Look on youtube.

Has it not occured to you, that since this is a show whose only goal is ratings, that any evidence given on the show might have been faked for purposes of adding drama? That seems to be what the producer's lawsuit is claiming.

No. It would be perfectly legal if the guy asked the cop "Will you have sex with me if I pay you?" or if the cop was a man and a woman approached him saying "I'll have sex with you for money."

dude, we just spent about 10 pages proving that i was right. Read ahead and please don't make me repeat myself

I claim to know they are likely guilty because I watched an episode of the show. You haven't, so you're arguments are based upon ignorance, strawmans aside.

Do you believe everything the TV tells you?

If you are not guilty you are innocent, thus it is proven and your issue with my choice or wording and not with the logic itself is rendered irrelevant. Thank you.

It is proven guilty that does not mean they are innocent or, if they are, that people will believe it.

If you are not guilty you are innocent, thus it is proven and your issue with my choice or wording and not with the logic itself is rendered irrelevant. Thank you.

Except you're entirely wrong, and like someone else, you are also confusing a legal verdict of not guilty with the factual determination of innocent. Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of criminal law wouldn't confuse a legal verdit of not guilty with a vactual determination of innocence.

If you are not guilty you are innocent, thus it is proven and your issue with my choice or wording and not with the logic itself is rendered irrelevant. Thank you.

No, you aren't. That's a legal term. It's not the way people treat you. Want proof. These guys will not be charged. As such, they are not guilty, so to speak. Do you regard them as innocent?

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.

No. No, they won't.

And in fact, let's look at OJ. OJ was found not guilty of murder, so he's innocent?

But a civil court found him to have killed her. So he's innocent but not?

It's gonna appear like I'm being an asshole when I say this, but know that's not the intent: but so what?



No, they're not; at least I'm not.



reductio ad absurdum: No one should be arrested until they are proven guilty. Denied.

That is not what we are saying. We are saying they should not be labeled pedophiles in a humiliating manner on national television when they haven't even had a jury trial to convict them of being pedophiles.

Innocence until proven guilty does not mean what everyone here has been saying it means.
Oh, and what do we think it means. Please do tell us what we're thinking, because we certainly don't know.
If you are not guilty you are innocent,

Not legally. As I understand it* a verdict of not guilty means that and only that, i.e. it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question. That does not mean that they didn't commit that crime, it only means that it cannot be proven.

Factually speaking:
Not guilty=Innocent
Legally speaking:
Not guilty=/=Innocent

You are mistaking matters of fact with matters of law.



*I am not a lawyer, it is entirely possible that I am wrong, and to save myself effort I concede to anyone who is a lawyer or has a greater understanding of law than I who contradicts me.

And in fact, let's look at OJ. OJ was found not guilty of murder, so he's innocent?

But a civil court found him to have killed her. So he's innocent but not?

Even more so. When he was found not guilty, did everyone who knows him suddenly decided he wasn't a bad person or guilty? That's certainly what X is suggesting would happen and it's so silly as to be laughable.

Their lives are destroyed because they were arrested for childmolestion or soliciting it on television. See, that's what a strawman is. No one is saying that they shouldn't be arrested. We're saying they should not be put on television until they are proven guilty.

Maybe, maybe not. I already said I detested the show because it's about ratings and not about justice, however at the same time there is nothing unjust about broadcasting an alleged crime as it is committed, I just think it's rude when it's done in the name of ratings.

Again, you're assuming they are guilty here. If they had been proven guilty, no one would be objecting.


They have been proven guilty many times in court. I assume they are guilty based upon the evidence, but unlike the strawman you built that says otherwise, I would still like to see them all receive a fair trial.

Hilarious. No, them being guilty is crucial to your argument. Mentioning it is not a strawman. Again, you could make a better argument just posting random words. Your use of the fallacies is practically random.


Argument: They are likely guilty based upon the evidence at hand. They should still receive a fair trial.

Yours: The J00z did it and NBC is a mess of incompetent monkeys that suckered a bunch of innocent people into committing a crime.

No, it doesn't. That the show is edited is not an assumption. That's a fact. That even the district attorney found flaws in ther process is not an assumption. That's a fact. That the district attorney found so many flaws that he refused to prosecute is a fact. That the shows pays PJ is a fact. That the show relies on viewership to continue is a fact.

The assumption is that the editing is proof of the suspects actual innocence instead of basic procedure done by every television program that has ever existed and not broadcasted live at the scene.

The assumption is that paying PJ is wrong.

The assumption is that the district attorney wasn't just worried that entrapment would make all prosecutions impossibly difficult in the face of a suicide.

The assumption is that NBC is full of evil corporate executives that care so much about ratings they wish to frame everyone that is put on their show.

These are facts. Refusing to consider them is fallacious.


Calling the above facts is fallacious.

Facts we don't have. Unedited footage. Unedited transcripts. None. Not one.

So the suspected were photoshopped being at the houses, the transcripts were all doctored by PJ, and the police are too incompetent to figure this out.

Everyone believes there is a huge potential for them being guilty here. That's not the point. The potential for innocence makes what they are doing unethical. That's not a question. It's a fact.

That is the point, as evidenced by my entire existence here being predicated on such and most of the arguments also revolving around that fact. The potential for innocence doesn't make what they're doing unethical, that's just your word based on nothing.

You don't get the point here. They are paying them as a source. In journalism this is a breach of ethics.


They're paying them to render a service because it's a volunteer organization.

Not allegedly. Neither the show nor the producer dispute that fact. When your argument requires that you ignore facts, then you fail. You know facts like the show is edited for entertainment, that the producer left the show because of issues she had with how it was being handled, the PJ is paid for their participation in the show. These are facts. No one is disputing them except you.

Allegedly her story is true. This discounting of course the very real possibility that she was just wrong.

No, you aren't. That's a legal term. It's not the way people treat you. Want proof. These guys will not be charged. As such, they are not guilty, so to speak. Do you regard them as innocent?

*Sigh* if your issue with my word choice (and thus you cannot discern whatsoever what I so obviously meant) then I will correct myself for your benefit.

When / if they are found to be not guilty, then they're reputations, while damaged, will be slowly repaired. Reputations that would suffer locally because their arrest would be known by the community. The difference between that situation and this is that it's something that was nationally viewed, to a while load of people that the accused will never know nor have any contact with.

dude, we just spent about 10 pages proving that i was right. Read ahead and please don't make me repeat myself
Okay. You're a lawyer. I'll chose to shut my mouth, because I am an idiot layman.

Seriously, that's not sarcasm.

But does that apply to this situation. I haven't read these logs, but are these fake teens suggesting sex?

Also, I think that TCaP is dangerous, simply because they are having a civilian chatting with the predators. They should either use cops or have cops present.

Oh, and what do we think it means. Please do tell us what we're thinking, because we certainly don't know.

That they are absolutely innocent and cannot be likely guilty in anyone's eyes because of a sentence people take and skew the meaning of.

Not legally. As I understand it* a verdict of not guilty means that and only that, i.e. it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question. That does not mean that they didn't commit that crime, it only means that it cannot be proven.

Factually speaking:
Not guilty=Innocent
Legally speaking:
Not guilty=/=Innocent

You are mistaking matters of fact with matters of law.

There's nothing wrong with factually speaking. If they are not guilty then they are innocent to the eyes of the public everyone is so concerned with. Besides, taking the position you are now we ought to through everyone in jail regardless of jury findings because we cannot truly know of they are actually innocent.

That is not what we are saying. We are saying they should not be labeled pedophiles in a humiliating manner on national television when they haven't even had a jury trial to convict them of being pedophiles.
"Hey look at that guy smoking pot. He's a pot head."
"No he's not."
"What do you mean 'no he's not' he is standing there smoking pot."
"Absurd."

*Sigh* if your issue with my word choice (and thus you cannot discern whatsoever what I so obviously meant) then I will correct myself for your benefit.

When / if they are found to be not guilty, then they're reputations, while damaged, will be slowly repaired.

Says who? And why should it be that way? If they are actually innocent, which you've admitted is possible, then certainly they should have to repair what NBC should not have so callously broken.

Meanwhile, how is OJ doing? He was found not guilty. Has his reputation been repaired?

My issue isn't solely with your word choice. It's that you keep saying things that are factually wrong.


Reputations that would suffer locally because their arrest would be known by the community. The difference between that situation and this is that it's something that was nationally viewed, to a while load of people that the accused will never know nor have any contact with.

And to nearly everyone the accused DOES know or will ever have contact with. How would you like to spend your life as that guy that got caught on dateline?

10 years later -
Woman: "Aren't you that dude from Dateline who got caught trying to fuck a child a few years ago?"
Guy: "Um, no. I was entrapped and it really didn't happen the way it appeared on TV."
Woman: "Oh, well, then I want to date you. Let's go out."

10 years later -
Woman: "Aren't you that dude from Dateline who got caught trying to fuck a child a few years ago?"
Guy: "Um, no. I was entrapped and it really didn't happen the way it appeared on TV."
Woman: "Whatever, pedo. Get away from me, you creep."

Hmmmm... I wonder which is more likely.

There's nothing wrong with factually speaking. If they are not guilty then they are innocent to the eyes of the public everyone is so concerned with. Besides, taking the position you are now we ought to through everyone in jail regardless of jury findings because we cannot truly know of they are actually innocent.
Now read:

Even more so. When he was found not guilty, did everyone who knows him suddenly decided he wasn't a bad person or guilty? That's certainly what X is suggesting would happen and it's so silly as to be laughable.

That they are absolutely innocent and cannot be likely guilty in anyone's eyes because of a sentence people take and skew the meaning of.

Uh, nope. The point is that even "likely guilty" isn't reason enough to punish them, and putting them on television to be humiliated is a punishment even if it's not the government administering it. No one is claiming you can't think they are "likely guilty". We are saying they aren't proven guilty so should be treated as if they are proven guilty. See the difference? Nevermind. We already know the answer is no.


There's nothing wrong with factually speaking. If they are not guilty then they are innocent to the eyes of the public everyone is so concerned with. Besides, taking the position you are now we ought to through everyone in jail regardless of jury findings because we cannot truly know of they are actually innocent.

No, that's not true. If they are not proven guilty, they are not innocent to the eyes of the public. You keep saying that but it's patently false and OJ proves this to be patently false.

See, and there is the strawman. Innocent until proven guilty means that unless we can prove them guilty they don't go to jail. You are arguing for guilty until proven innocent in that last paragraph, which we mean we would put them in jail until they are proven innocent. You've got it backwards and it's a little annoying that you don't recognize it.

And in fact, let's look at OJ. OJ was found not guilty of murder, so he's innocent?

But a civil court found him to have killed her. So he's innocent but not?

Different systems. Civil law puts the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence instead of upon the prosecutor to prove their guilt.

But does that apply to this situation. I haven't read these logs, but are these fake teens suggesting sex?

Also, I think that TCaP is dangerous, simply because they are having a civilian chatting with the predators. They should either use cops or have cops present.

See the problem with entrapment is it gets tricky. Again, a mere offer isn't entrapment. If they went "hey I'm 13 want to have sex?" that's not entrapment.

If they go "hey, I know I'm only 13 but I heard older men are really good in bed, and I've never had sex and I really want my first time to be real special, and I really just can't stop thinking about you" then....now we're starting to run into problems.

At what point does enticement become entrapment is one of the major legal questions as to this matter. Suffice to say MERELY OFFERING is not entrapment. How far BEYOND merely offering do you have to go before it becomes entrapment is another question.

What MOST of the police do in this situation is begin talking innocently then wait for the targets to bring it up. In those instances, entrapment doesn't even enter the picture. And it's all perfectly legal.

Trust me, I know. My brother is 8 months into a 16 month jail stint for getting caught in one.

Different systems. Civil law puts the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence instead of upon the prosecutor to prove their guilt.

um...again, not exactly. It is more proper to say that neither party has a specific burden in civil law. There is no presumption in civil law like ther eis in criminal law.

"Hey look at that guy smoking pot. He's a pot head."
"No he's not."
"What do you mean 'no he's not' he is standing there smoking pot."
"Absurd."

More like.

Hey, look, that guy is on tv and it looks like he might be smoking pot, because they show a bong next to him and he occasionally blows out smoke. We never actually see him smoke pot, or ask to smoke pot, or do anything that is necessarily related to smoking pot.

On the show, only a handfull of guys are actually shown doing anything wrong. The rest we are left to infer are equally guilty.

Different systems. Civil law puts the burden on the defendant to prove their innocence instead of upon the prosecutor to prove their guilt.

Um, wrong again.

Meanwhile, you've said that if he's found not guilty in a criminal court that in the eyes of the public he is innocent. What percentage of the public still thinks OJ is guilty. If you're correct, it should approach 0%, no?

Says who? And why should it be that way? If they are actually innocent, which you've admitted is possible, then certainly they should not have to repair what NBC should not have so callously broken.

The act of being arrested for pedophilia is what shattered their reputations, and in the first season the act of showing up at a house and being proven (as much as NBC could) that they were their for illegal activity was also a reputation annihilating event. If these are so wrong then maybe we shouldn't arrest anyone because it would make them feel bad.

Meanwhile, how is OJ doing? He was found not guilty. Has his reputation been repaired?

You never heard about the civil proceedings or his great book about how he would do it if he did? It's rather hard to have your reputation repaired when you act in the manner that OJ had done.

My issue isn't solely with your word choice. It's that you keep saying things that are factually wrong.


If you are not guilty your are usually innocent. That better?

And to nearly everyone the accused DOES know or will ever have contact with. How would you like to spend your life as that guy that got caught on dateline?

Not everyone in America saw that episode, and the people caught also do not have contact with everyone who has watched the show, especially given the usual attention span of your average individual.

10 years later -
Woman: "Aren't you that dude from Dateline who got caught trying to fuck a child a few years ago?"
Guy: "Um, no. I was entrapped and it really didn't happen the way it appeared on TV."
Woman: "Oh, well, then I want to date you. Let's go out."

Woman: "Oh, I bet the entire ordeal was traumatic."
Guy: "Yes it was. Since I am obviously here to ask you on a date out of the blue therefore having this situation make sense would you like to go out?"
Woman: "Sure, but first I think we should try and make this line of reasoning ElectronX is poking fun at make sense."
Guy: "Nah, let's just shag like rabits."
[CENSORED]

10 years later -
Woman: "Aren't you that dude from Dateline who got caught trying to fuck a child a few years ago?"
Guy: "Um, no. I was entrapped and it really didn't happen the way it appeared on TV."
Woman: "Whatever, pedo. Get away from me, you creep."

Hmmmm... I wonder which is more likely.

Neither.

Um, wrong again.

Meanwhile, you've said that if he's found not guilty in a criminal court that in the eyes of the public he is innocent. What percentage of the public still thinks OJ is guilty. If you're correct, it should approach 0%, no?

No, the civil court puts the burden on the defendant.

um...again, not exactly. It is more proper to say that neither party has a specific burden in civil law. There is no presumption in civil law like ther eis in criminal law.

There is an implied burden on the defendant. That party has to prove he is innocent. It may not be as defined as I claimed earlier; I'm not a lawyer despite my interest in becoming one, but the effects of changing the burden are obvious.

No, the civil court puts the burden on the defendant.

No, it doesn't.

Certain causes of action may put the evidentiary burden on the defendant once the plaintiff has made out the necessary elements of his or her case, but that is not the same as reversing the burden of proof.

Certain causes of action....

Is that the equivalent to motive? Explain please.

The act of being arrested for pedophilia is what shattered their reputations, and in the first season the act of showing up at a house and being proven (as much as NBC could) that they were their for illegal activity was also a reputation annihilating event. If these are so wrong then maybe we shouldn't arrest anyone because it would make them feel bad.

You're being intentionally obtuse. We are talking about appearing on the show. We are not talking about the arrests or whether they should be arrested. We are talking about humiliating them on TV for entertainment and that because it's entertainment whether they are convicted or not, there is no reason to take the same care cops would take if it were they project.

You can't take the TV part out of this and still be talking about the same thing as us, as much as you'd like.

However, if you find ANYONE arguing that people who are soliciting sex from minors should not be arrested, point them out. I'd like to have a word with them.




You never heard about the civil proceedings or his great book about how he would do it if he did? It's rather hard to have your reputation repaired when you act in the manner that OJ had done.

Ha. You don't like facts, do you? Prior to that, there was a fairly large group who believed he was guilty. You can't get around that. It's a fact. Want me to list other people?

For example, how common do you think it is to believe that Richard Gere was in the hospital because a gerbil was up his ass? Why? Because it was on the "news". Nevermind that if you really did that it would kill you.




If you are not guilty your are usually innocent. That better?

Again, you can't substantiate that statement.


Not everyone in America saw that episode, and the people caught also do not have contact with everyone who has watched the show, especially given the usual attention span of your average individual.

You're squirming so hard. It's almost funny, but please squirm a little more because I prefer REALLY funny. He appeared on a show that exposed him to a huge portion of people. It's fairly likely that once this happens, there is always going to be someone who remembers and thinks it's funny to "out" him. He almost certainly couldn't run for office. He almost certainly could never be a TV personality. He almost certainly could never work as a teacher. Pretending this will just go away if he's not convicted is deliberately obtuse.

Why not just be honest? You don't care. You don't think it will go away if they're innocent. Admit it. No one is that ignorant of the American public.




Woman: "Oh, I bet the entire ordeal was traumatic."
Guy: "Yes it was. Since I am obviously here to ask you on a date out of the blue therefore having this situation make sense would you like to go out?"
Woman: "Sure, but first I think we should try and make this line of reasoning ElectronX is poking fun at make sense."
Guy: "Nah, let's just shag like rabits."
[CENSORED]

Yes, young men never ask women out on dates. It never happens. It's like every other explanation in the thread you could dispute, you stick your head in the sand and claim it didn't happen, or doesn't make sense, or you try desperately to claim some fallacy.

That doesn't work on rational people. No one is buying your argument, because your antics are not convincing.




Neither.

Like I said, bury that head deep in the sand.

Uh, nope. The point is that even "likely guilty" isn't reason enough to punish them, and putting them on television to be humiliated is a punishment even if it's not the government administering it. No one is claiming you can't think they are "likely guilty". We are saying they aren't proven guilty so should be treated as if they are proven guilty. See the difference? Nevermind. We already know the answer is no.

So personal responsibility goes out the window now? They may have been entrapped, there are significant doubts in this area as outlined earlier, yet they still showed up at these houses expecting to have sex with a minor. Is it NBC's responsibility that despite the days of afterthought available to them that they went along with it anyway?

No, that's not true. If they are not proven guilty, they are not innocent to the eyes of the public. You keep saying that but it's patently false and OJ proves this to be patently false.

Because you don't know anything about OJ.

See, and there is the strawman. Innocent until proven guilty means that unless we can prove them guilty they don't go to jail. You are arguing for guilty until proven innocent in that last paragraph, which we mean we would put them in jail until they are proven innocent. You've got it backwards and it's a little annoying that you don't recognize it.

It's called reducing to the absurd. I explained this already.

No, the civil court puts the burden on the defendant.

Seriously, doesn't just guessing at things you don't know the first thing about seem like a good argument to you? Because to anyone who knows, it's obvious that's what you're doing.

No, it doesn't.

Certain causes of action may put the evidentiary burden on the plaintiff once the defendant has made out the necessary elements of his or her case, but that is not the same as reversing the burden of proof.

Did you switch defendant and plaintiff here, Nees?

Is that the equivalent to motive? Explain please.

'Cause of action'...what you're suing on. Trespass, negligence, etc. Different causes of action have varying evidentiary burdens in civil law. There is no presumption of innocence, nor is there a presumption of guilt. The idea is to determine, more likely than not that 'x' did or did not happen. Each side can present evidence to shift the balance...when they can do this depends on the specific elements of the cause of action.

For example, how common do you think it is to believe that Richard Gere was in the hospital because a gerbil was up his ass? Why? Because it was on the "news". Nevermind that if you really did that it would kill you.



*Morbid curiousity*
How would that kill you wouldn't it just... crawl out?

So personal responsibility goes out the window now? They may have been entrapped, there are significant doubts in this area as outlined earlier, yet they still showed up at these houses expecting to have sex with a minor. Is it NBC's responsibility that despite the days of afterthought available to them that they went along with it anyway?

Again, if you've proven they are guilty I've got no issue with putting them on TV. Every argument you make relies on them being guilty of a crime, something you've admitted is only "likely". So either you don't know what "likely" means or you're lying when you say it's only "likely" and you really mean it's "certain".




Because you don't know anything about OJ.

Yet another argument that relies on ad hominem. His book didn't come out immediately after the trial, of course. The civil trial was not decided immediately after the trial either. You claimed that the public would regard you as innocent if you are found not guilty. You've been proven wrong. Accept it. This is just silly.


It's called reducing to the absurd. I explained this already.

I don't think you know what that means. But you are certainly committing a fallacy. Using one is a great way to destroy the credibility of your own argument so sally forth.

Seriously, insert a couple of clucks randomly. It won't affect the validity of your argument and it will be much more entertaining.

*Morbid curiousity*
How would that kill you wouldn't it just... crawl out?

What do you think and animal with teeth for gnawing and claws for digging would do if it were trapped and dying?

'Cause of action'...what you're suing on. Trespass, negligence, etc. Different causes of action have varying evidentiary burdens in civil law. There is no presumption of innocence, nor is there a presumption of guilt. The idea is to determine, more likely than not that 'x' did or did not happen. Each side can present evidence to shift the balance...when they can do this depends on the specific elements of the cause of action.
Okay, thanks.

Did you switch defendant and plaintiff here, Nees?

No (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12836336&postcount=325). I think you edited my post to make it look like that :D.

What do you think and animal with teeth for gnawing and claws for digging would do if it were trapped and dying?

Could it actually dig through skin? Didn't they evolve for digging in sand?

No (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12836336&postcount=325). I think you edited my post to make it look like that :D.

Ha. I was reading it and I was thinking, Maybe there is some difference in certain cases that I'm not getting or maybe the law is different in Canada, but that seems sort of absurd. It took like four or five reads before my stupid brain kicked in and figured it out.

Could it actually dig through skin? Didn't they evolve for digging in sand?

It isn't the same tissue found up there. It's a lot easier to tear

Could it actually dig through skin? Didn't they evolve for digging in sand?

Well, the typical domestic gerbil is quite capable of gnawing up wood. They borrow and since they are from all over Asia, they aren't restricted to sand that I'm aware of. I'd say I wouldn't put the tensile strength of my colon up against a block of wood ever.

Ha. I was reading it and I was thinking, Maybe there is some difference in certain cases that I'm not getting or maybe the law is different in Canada, but that seems sort of absurd. It took like four or five reads before my stupid brain kicked in and figured it out.

Glad you caught it or our poor friend would be even more confused than he already is.

That they are absolutely innocent and cannot be likely guilty in anyone's eyes because of a sentence people take and skew the meaning of.
Nobody here thinks that.



Besides, taking the position you are now we ought to through everyone in jail regardless of jury findings because we cannot truly know of they are actually innocent.
I don't see how you could possibly think this without a near total logical disconnect from reality.

What a bizarre conversation this has become.

Glad you caught it or our poor friend would be even more confused than he already is.

Given how much of what he says appears to continue unchanged no matter what anyone says, I don't much expect it to make a difference.

But what do you know, you've never watch TCAP?

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.

That's not how it works in the real world. When you've accused of said crime on national television, no one wants to hire you. Even if you've been declared innocent. People will always use it against you.

You can't just pick up where you left off. You're life is ruined.

But what do you know, you've never watched TCAP?

I don't watch amateur surgery either.

You're being intentionally obtuse. We are talking about appearing on the show. We are not talking about the arrests or whether they should be arrested. We are talking about humiliating them on TV for entertainment and that because it's entertainment whether they are convicted or not, there is no reason to take the same care cops would take if it were they project.

And indeed I have an issue with ratings above all. As I already said. However that doesn't mean these people are innocent because NBC likes cash.

Ha. You don't like facts, do you? Prior to that, there was a fairly large group who believed he was guilty. You can't get around that. It's a fact. Want me to list other people?

Yes, plenty of people thought he was guilty. Then the verdict came in and he was declared not-guilty. Then the civil suit started and he was found guilty there. The necessary time needed for a public figure's reputation to be repaired was never realized his actions during the conflict not-withstanding.

Again, you can't substantiate that statement.


So if you're not guilty your still guilty. Fun.

You're squirming so hard. It's almost funny, but please squirm a little more because I prefer REALLY funny. He appeared on a show that exposed him to a huge portion of people. It's fairly likely that once this happens, there is always going to be someone who remembers and thinks it's funny to "out" him. He almost certainly couldn't run for office. He almost certainly could never be a TV personality. He almost certainly could never work as a teacher. Pretending this will just go away if he's not convicted is deliberately obtuse.

See above relating to personal responsibility still being a factor. Then again everyone in America is such an amoral asshole that being not-guilty is the same as being guilty according to you.

Yes, young men never ask women out on dates. It never happens. It's like every other explanation in the thread you could dispute, you stick your head in the sand and claim it didn't happen, or doesn't make sense, or you try desperately to claim some fallacy.

If it looks like a fallacy, works like a fallacy, and makes the argument fallacious, well it just might be a fallacy, Jim.

um, no, not exactly....you are confusing guilty as a matter of law and guilty as a matter of fact.

Being humiliated on national tv just so a TV show can have high ratings does not count as being guilty as a matter of "fact".

It's more like you are guilty because the lynch mob says you are.

Bingo. People are arrested in the suspicion of guilt, not because people think they are innocent. People are held in custody to prevent escape, not because people think they need to be protected from being innocent. Innocence until proven guilty does not mean what everyone here has been saying it means.

Maybe I misread but weren't you and THP arguing that their being arrested was absolute proof of the fact they were guilty?

And indeed I have an issue with ratings above all. As I already said. However that doesn't mean these people are innocent because NBC likes cash.

The point is that you need to prove that these people are guilty and that when ratings as opposed to actual guilt are the stations priority then you have a problem.

So if you're not guilty your still guilty. Fun.



It's not. However, it is the way that it can sometimes go.

Again, if you've proven they are guilty I've got no issue with putting them on TV. Every argument you make relies on them being guilty of a crime, something you've admitted is only "likely". So either you don't know what "likely" means or you're lying when you say it's only "likely" and you really mean it's "certain".

I admit only likely because I'm not the judge or jury that will be trying their cases. They're on TV because they went to the house to fuck a kid, whether they were entrapped or not. That's something you can't get around no matter how hard you try.

[quote]Yet another argument that relies on ad hominem. His book didn't come out immediately after the trial, of course. The civil trial was not decided immediately after the trial either. You claimed that the public would regard you as innocent if you are found not guilty. You've been proven wrong. Accept it. This is just silly.

It's not immediate, I never made that claim. It's also different that he is a public figure who have people with dissenting opinions of their character regardless of their crimes committed or not. Strawman is made of fail.

The act of being arrested for pedophilia is what shattered their reputations, and in the first season the act of showing up at a house and being proven (as much as NBC could) that they were their for illegal activity was also a reputation annihilating event. If these are so wrong then maybe we shouldn't arrest anyone because it would make them feel bad.



You never heard about the civil proceedings or his great book about how he would do it if he did? It's rather hard to have your reputation repaired when you act in the manner that OJ had done.



If you are not guilty your are usually innocent. That better?



Not everyone in America saw that episode, and the people caught also do not have contact with everyone who has watched the show, especially given the usual attention span of your average individual.



Woman: "Oh, I bet the entire ordeal was traumatic."
Guy: "Yes it was. Since I am obviously here to ask you on a date out of the blue therefore having this situation make sense would you like to go out?"
Woman: "Sure, but first I think we should try and make this line of reasoning ElectronX is poking fun at make sense."
Guy: "Nah, let's just shag like rabits."
[CENSORED]



Neither.

Except for one problem. Most people don't stay in the same place their whole lives. They tend to move.
Jay was on TCAP. He was found not guilty by a jury. He lost his job though and had to move from Caport to Haport.
He gets job at Haport.
Meantime, Jed the anti ped crusader remembers Jay from TCAP.
Jed starts calling up Jay's work and following him around. Jed also stands in front of Jay's work and home with a sign that reads in big letters:
"Jay is a Pedophile. It's true cause he was on Dateline."
Jay's boss fires him when he finds out he was arrested for being accused of pedophilia.

See that how it really work in real life.
In the meantime, neither PJ nor TCAP nor Hansen have to give him a public apology even though they were wrong to begin with.

Supposed pedophiles like the people who ran cars into the airports in the UK the other day are supposed terrorists.

Or like the people delivered by Afghani warlords for money are supposed terrorists. Dateline is a business, media, but a business. Ratings are all that matter. What is the matter of actual guilt compared to that?


I'm sorry, do you people not know what the police are?

Neither media organizations or self appointed watchdogs are legal law enforcement agents. Unsolicited entrapment tactics and prosecution on their word alone is the same as excepting a person's guilt on an Afghani warlords "Because I say so"

You either intend for the law to be carried out, or you don't.

Dateline does not. Not with entrapment and trial by media.

Except for one problem. Most people don't stay in the same place their whole lives. They tend to move.
Jay can be TCAP. He can be found not guilty by a jury. He lost his job though and had to move from Caport to Haport.
He gets job at Haport.
Meantime, Jed the anti ped crusader remembers Jay from TCAP.
Jed starts calling up Jay's work and following him around. Jed also stands in front of Jay's work and home with a sign that reads in big letters:
"Jay is a Pedophile. It's true cause he was on Dateline."
Jay's boss fires him when he finds out he was arrested for being accused of pedophilia.

See that how it really work in real life.
In the meantime, neither PJ nor TCAP nor Hansen have to give him a public apology even though they were wrong to begin with.
"Accused" of pedophilia? They came into a house to a young girl who was sexpecting them and proceeded to make themselves at home at her behest while she made suggestive comments.

I don't watch amateur surgery either.

Those shows are disgusting.

"Accused" of pedophilia? They came into a house to a young girl who was sexpecting them and proceeded to make themselves at home at her behest while she made suggestive comments.

You might want to reread my post. I said that in that case, Jay was found innocent by a jury.

You're back to saying "they are guilty because NBC says they are".

You might want to reread my post. I said that in that case, Jay was found innocent by a jury.
If that was a real case, I would assume there is evidence of it occurring which shouldn't be too hard to provide.

There is another thing to consider.

Under US law as it applies to the press, truth is the ultimate defense. As long as what the press says is the truth they are not liable. (There is an exception when someone is caught doing something involuntarily. The old example is a woman fell down and her underwear was shown. Since she didn't fall down on purpose she can sue for invasion of privacy. [with women's fashions today I'm going to have to think of another example] Oh, people like Britany and Paris by purposely putting themselves in the public eye give up the right to privacy in public places)

In other words, as long as they are careful about their words so no opinion is given there can be no liability. They would have to carefully review the tape so every word was fact and not opinion, but they wait several months before air so that wouldn't be a problem.

"Accused" of pedophilia? They came into a house to a young girl who was sexpecting them and proceeded to make themselves at home at her behest while she made suggestive comments.
"As for the rest of the cases, he said neither police nor NBC could guarantee the chat logs were authentic and complete."

"suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house.

Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County, who allegedly engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy.

As police knocked at his door and a “Dateline” camera crew waited in the street, Conradt shot himself."

Not all of them show up at the house.

If that was a real case, I would assume there is evidence of it occurring which shouldn't be too hard to provide.
What that they can be innocent?
"Then, last month, Collin County District Attorney John Roach dropped all charges."

If that was a real case, I would assume there is evidence of it occurring which shouldn't be too hard to provide.

But again...

NBC is not the legal system. They don't have the right to say if a person is guilty or innocent until AFTER a jury has already made that decision.
They're evidence was thrown out because it was proven, to the DA, that it was circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence /= guilty.

"As for the rest of the cases, he said neither police nor NBC could guarantee the chat logs were authentic and complete."

"suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house.

Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County, who allegedly engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy.

As police knocked at his door and a “Dateline” camera crew waited in the street, Conradt shot himself."

Not all of them show up at the house.


What that they can be innocent?
"Then, last month, Collin County District Attorney John Roach dropped all charges."

You know, if a person had a prior conviction, it would be unlikely he would be chatting with a 13 year old cause that would violate his probation. They could get prior convicted people just for violating probation, without said people going to the house.

However, I think they proved that the prosecutor in question had no prior conviction for child molesting. They just wanted to arrest and prosecute him for talking to a minor on the internet. Something which, again, is not illegal.

That fact proves to me that PJ and TCAP are on a witchhunt and out for ratings.

There is another thing to consider.

Under US law as it applies to the press, truth is the ultimate defense. As long as what the press says is the truth they are not liable. (There is an exception when someone is caught doing something involuntarily. The old example is a woman fell down and her underwear was shown. Since she didn't fall down on purpose she can sue for invasion of privacy. [with women's fashions today I'm going to have to think of another example] Oh, people like Britany and Paris by purposely putting themselves in the public eye give up the right to privacy in public places)

In other words, as long as they are careful about their words so no opinion is given there can be no liability. They would have to carefully review the tape so every word was fact and not opinion, but they wait several months before air so that wouldn't be a problem.

You could still take their picture as long as you aren't looking up their skirt to do so. Or at least as long as you are not doing so on purpose and as long as you make no money from it.

"As for the rest of the cases, he said neither police nor NBC could guarantee the chat logs were authentic and complete."
You don't have to guarantee anything, just prove beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason not to believe the logs are complete or authentic, especially after the perps show up at the house after agreeing too. How do they get the pictures of the people who send them? Do they fake the whole thing but the invitation? They can get the logs from the perps computer or from somewhere else I bet and compare them if they don't believe they are legit.

As police knocked at his door and a “Dateline” camera crew waited in the street, Conradt shot himself."

Not all of them show up at the house.
That was likely extraordinary because of who it was. Have you ever watched to catch a predator? They set up a target house with police then have the suspects come to them.


What that they can be innocent?
"Then, last month, Collin County District Attorney John Roach dropped all charges."
Thanks for proving nothing.

You know, if a person had a prior conviction, it would be unlikely he would be chatting with a 13 year old cause that would violate his probation.
Yeah, that is totally infallible logic. No offenders, especially sex offenders, have ever reoffended or violated their probation before :rolleyes:


That fact proves to me that PJ and TCAP are on a witchhunt and out for ratings.
After reading all this ignorant and naive tripe, I will stick with PJ and TCAP over you.

Yeah, that is totally infallible logic. No offenders, especially sex offenders, have ever reoffended or violated their probation before :rolleyes:


After reading all this ignorant and naive tripe, I will stick with PJ and TCAP over you.

The guy who spent about ten pages being proven wrong about how entrapment works is calling someone ignorant. Ironic.

You don't have to guarantee anything, just prove beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason not to believe the logs are complete or authentic, especially after the perps show up at the house after agreeing too. How do they get the pictures of the people who send them? Do they fake the whole thing but the invitation? They can get the logs from the perps computer or from somewhere else I bet and compare them if they don't believe they are legit.


That was likely extraordinary because of who it was. Have you ever watched to catch a predator? They set up a target house with police then have the suspects come to them.



Thanks for proving nothing.

Oh I see. Let's bash a publicly elected person by going to his house and insisting on national TV he's a pedophile.

The only target house in this case was the prosecutors house that they intended to break into so as to drive up their ratings.

The guy who spent about ten pages being proven wrong about how entrapment works is calling someone ignorant. Ironic.
Oh yes, attempting to argue about entrapment using evidence is totally the same as
You know, if a person had a prior conviction, it would be unlikely he would be chatting with a 13 year old cause that would violate his probation.

Totally the same.


How dense do you have to be to say that, and how dense do you have to be to defend it knowing it is wrong?


The only target house in this case was the prosecutors house that they intended to break into so as to drive up their ratings.
I guess you didn't read the article as closely as you let on.
As police knocked at his door and a “Dateline” camera crew waited in the street

Maybe they [the police] were using their Superman knocking powers to break into the house.

You're the one making the indirect claim that PJ and TCAP are legal authorities who not only have the right to arrest but the right to convict and the right to punish. Heck, I wonder if the officers used in their programs even had warrants. Which is something else that is required in the US legal system.

I believe you are also the one insinauting that anyone opposed to PJ's tactics is automatically a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer.

I've seen people in this thread, who know a lot more than me, smash all of your arguments.

Oh yes, attempting to argue about entrapment using evidence is totally the same as


Totally the same.


How dense do you have to be to say that, and how dense do you have to be to defend it knowing it is wrong?

In the 13 year old girl quote, you keep forgetting that one reason it would unlikely a prior convicted would do so is that law enforcement would, as part of probation terms, be monitoring his internet usage.
Unless the guy is a moron he wouldn't do anything to break probation. Indeed, most prior convicteds, these days, are actually banned from using the internet at home, as part of the terms of probation. In one extroadinary case, the guy isn't even allowed to use it at work.

Oh yes, attempting to argue about entrapment using evidence is totally the same as

No, arguing from ignorance and later accusing someone of ignorance is amusing.

You're the one making the indirect claim that PJ and TCAP are legal authorities who not only have the right to arrest but the right to convict and the right to punish. Heck, I wonder if the officers used in their programs even had warrants. Which is something else that is required in the US legal system.

I believe you are also the one insinauting that anyone opposed to PJ's tactics is automatically a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer.
I don't even know how to best insult you and I can't even begin to respond to such idiotic statements. I am done responding to you and reading your inane tripe. Good day to you sir.

I've seen people in this thread, who know a lot more than me, smash all of your arguments.
On totally different arguments divergent from this topic. The only other people "smashing my arguments" live in the same bizarro world as you do.

I don't even know how to best insult you and I can't even begin to respond to such idiotic statements. I am done responding to you and reading your inane tripe. Good day to you sir.


On totally different arguments divergent from this topic. The only other people "smashing my arguments" live in the same bizarro world as you do.

Then why are you wasting my time with your posts?

You don't have to guarantee anything, just prove beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason not to believe the logs are complete or authentic, especially after the perps show up at the house after agreeing too. How do they get the pictures of the people who send them? Do they fake the whole thing but the invitation? They can get the logs from the perps computer or from somewhere else I bet and compare them if they don't believe they are legit.
Judging from the charges that where dropped, maybe they were.


That was likely extraordinary because of who it was. Have you ever watched to catch a predator? They set up a target house with police then have the suspects come to them.
Not in this case. They went to him after he didn't show up and therefore there is no proof about what he was intending to do.

Not in this case. They went to him after he didn't show up and therefore there is no proof about what he was intending to do.
Until he shot himself.

Until he shot himself.

Him doing suicide does mean he committed a crime. Otherwise it would be illegal to respond to forum posts made by 13 year olds. Which, we all know, it isn't.

And indeed I have an issue with ratings above all. As I already said. However that doesn't mean these people are innocent because NBC likes cash.

Yeah, keep putting up that strawman. All anyone is saying is that it casts doubt, not makes them necessarily innocent. Are you unable to argue against the actual arguments so you have no choice but to make them up?


Yes, plenty of people thought he was guilty. Then the verdict came in and he was declared not-guilty. Then the civil suit started and he was found guilty there. The necessary time needed for a public figure's reputation to be repaired was never realized his actions during the conflict not-withstanding.

Hilarious. So you are really going to suggest that if not for the civil suit everyone would regard OJ as innocent today? Are you sure that's the gem you want to rest your argument on?




So if you're not guilty your still guilty. Fun.

You're really struggling with the difference between legal guilt and actual guilt, aren't you? For example on one entire show of TCAP, everyone was not guilty legally. None were charged. Yet, you're still arguing that they are guilty. Fun. Even you don't believe your argument. How about you make an argument you disprove all on your own.



See above relating to personal responsibility still being a factor. Then again everyone in America is such an amoral asshole that being not-guilty is the same as being guilty according to you.

You are. You've claimed they are likely guilty despite the DA saying they cannot be charged with a crime. You're proof against your own claim. I don't believe that makes you an amoral asshole, but you can make that argument if you like. You clearly do believe that even without being found guilty in court you can be guilty. Or would you like to accept a loss at this point.



If it looks like a fallacy, works like a fallacy, and makes the argument fallacious, well it just might be a fallacy, Jim.

Are you seriously arguing that these men would never have tried to hit on a woman in a bar? Because you claimed that it's completely unlikely that a guy would hit on a woman at a bar. You avoided that argument by sticking your head in the sand. Keep going. It's really making your argument credible.

Seriously, in what world are you making a reasonable argument? It's not this one. This isn't even remotely connected to reality.

I admit only likely because I'm not the judge or jury that will be trying their cases. They're on TV because they went to the house to fuck a kid, whether they were entrapped or not. That's something you can't get around no matter how hard you try.

If they legitimately went to the house to "fuck a kid" then they are guilty. Period. You're claiming that's a given. So I guess you're going to switch your claim.

So I once again ask you for the evidence you dodged the last time. Can you provide specific and untainted proof that they were there to "fuck a kid". Or do you enjoy making invalid assumptions? Again, don't answer. We've seen enough to know the answer.



It's not immediate, I never made that claim. It's also different that he is a public figure who have people with dissenting opinions of their character regardless of their crimes committed or not. Strawman is made of fail.

Dude, seriously, if you don't know what a word means, don't use it. Either he WILL be treated as an innocent when he is found not guilty as you claim, or you are wrong. You keep amending and amending your claim because you don't have a better argument. That's not a strawman. That's a fact. Or are you going to now magically claim you didn't say all that it takes to recover from an accusation of guilty is a not guilty claim.

There is an implied burden on the defendant. That party has to prove he is innocent. It may not be as defined as I claimed earlier; I'm not a lawyer despite my interest in becoming one, but the effects of changing the burden are obvious.

The problem is you are still treating civil law as something sorta like criminal law. It isn't. For instance, prove innocence. There is no such thing as innocent in civil law. There's no such thing as guilty.

There is liable, and not liable. Guilt and innocence are concepts of criminal law, not civil law. The standard of proof in civil law is "based on a preponderance of the evidence" or, in simpler terms, "more likely than not". It's the 51% test. Do we belive, more likely than not, that the defendant is liable. Do we believe, more likely than not, that the defendant is not liable. None of this beyond a reasonable doubt stuff.

I think you did something wrong, you think you didn't. We both put on our cases. I argue why you're wrong. You argue why you're not wrong. Whoever is more believeable wins. There is no presumption one way or the other. Whoever, at the end of the day, seems to have the more likely story, wins.

Who is more believable? Which story do we believe? Which story do we think is more likely to be true?

That's all that matters in civil law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486893/

About bloody time. They're putting kids in danger, causing people to committ suicide, engaging in entrapment of people (many of whome are innocent), and acting like they have the legal right to be judge jury and executioner.

I hope ABC gets a stern warning from the FCC for this behavior. Edit: Dateline should be taken off the air.

I most strongly object to them putting whole neighborhoods and local children in serious danger of being abducted just so total strangers can be 'entertained'. I think the people from Dateline and Perveted Justice should be put on trial. They ought to be charged with murder for all the suicides they've caused.

Good. My despise for these half-baked vigilantes that pretend to perpetrate some twisted form of 'justice' in order to feel superior sicken me to no end.

I truly hope their own personal hell is repeatedly being contacted by angels offering repentance, going to a cave to meet them, and then finding out they were only hideous sex-crazed incubus children bent on raping them until they leaked brimstone out the eyes.

(That's the plot of my next novel, by the way.)

Good. My despise for these half-baked vigilantes that pretend to perpetrate some twisted form of 'justice' in order to feel superior sicken me to no end.

I truly hope their own personal hell is repeatedly being contacted by angels offering repentance, going to a cave to meet them, and then finding out they were only hideous sex-crazed incubus children bent on raping them until they leaked brimstone out the eyes.

(That's the plot of my next novel, by the way.)

Careful. Things like that are what DOS'd DCD.

Careful. Things like that are what DOS'd DCD.

Nah. My statement is a wish for harm that would occur after they were dead; if they are harmed in this world or how they leave it is irrelevant to me, as we all die eventually. Besides, it's not really any more horrendous then people burning in a lake of fire.

Not that I'm trying to argue semantics to shimmy around a mod decision or anything.. But, though my anger is evident in my post, I don't wish actual, physical harm on them.. just that I hope the afterlife has a sense of irony.

Yeah, keep putting up that strawman. All anyone is saying is that it casts doubt, not makes them necessarily innocent. Are you unable to argue against the actual arguments so you have no choice but to make them up?

I agreed that their guilt should be determined at a fair trial. I have said this many times in fact. However, I do not agree with the supposition that NBC liking money means that these people were framed/entrapped as others have already argued.

Hilarious. So you are really going to suggest that if not for the civil suit everyone would regard OJ as innocent today? Are you sure that's the gem you want to rest your argument on?

Are you saying that being proven guilty in civil court didn't cast more than an acceptable level of doubt on his actual innocence without taking into account his behavior during the entire debacle?

You're really struggling with the difference between legal guilt and actual guilt, aren't you? For example on one entire show of TCAP, everyone was not guilty legally. None were charged. Yet, you're still arguing that they are guilty. Fun. Even you don't believe your argument. How about you make an argument you disprove all on your own.

I said their likely guilty. Strawman denied. Besides, that's your argument that I can't substantiate proven innocence as innocence because you want to muddle the word's meaning.

You are. You've claimed they are likely guilty despite the DA saying they cannot be charged with a crime. You're proof against your own claim. I don't believe that makes you an amoral asshole, but you can make that argument if you like. You clearly do believe that even without being found guilty in court you can be guilty. Or would you like to accept a loss at this point.

Because the evidence says they are. The DA being afraid of defense strategy in light of a suicide does not change that fact. Guilty has two different meanings in this debate, you want to use the one that is most acceptable to you at the time. Sorry, but I'm not blind.

Are you seriously arguing that these men would never have tried to hit on a woman in a bar? Because you claimed that it's completely unlikely that a guy would hit on a woman at a bar. You avoided that argument by sticking your head in the sand. Keep going. It's really making your argument credible.

The argument being made by the... 'situation' is a fallacy: it assumes that the woman is an irrational bunghole with no faith in the justice system because that's what it requires to be correct. Denied.

Dateline is not entrapping anyone..that is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard..and this DA is a moron..maybe he was in the same class with the Durham DA...he needs to be removed as well though as he clearly has no understanding of the law


entrapment: is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

Dateline and the police forces involved are simply providing an opportunity and place for the suspects to break the law..the only way any of these cases would be entrapment is if a law enforcement officer picked up the men after the online chats and then drove them to the sting house thereby directly causing the suspect to break the law..because the men drive to the house under their own will where they believe a minor is waiting... it is NOT entrapment.....not to mention a lot of the men take pictures of themselves and send it to the decoys which that is a whole nother law they're breaking.. the fact that some of you are defending pedophiles is sickening and very disturbing

Its quite simple really to avoid the whole situation if they used their brains and stopped the convo after they found out the person they're chatting to is supposedly a minor

man:How old are you?
decoy:14/f
man: I'm sorry I don't think we should continue talking

it really is as simple as that...

Also I should add when a man goes to a house where he thinks a 13 yr old girl is waiting with a six pack of beer, condoms and lubricant on his person its pretty clear what his intentions were...especially after you read over a transcript of the chat between the man and the young girl where he describes doing sexual acts with the minor..the whole "prove they were there to fuck a kid" argument is a load of garbage..

If they legitimately went to the house to "fuck a kid" then they are guilty. Period. You're claiming that's a given. So I guess you're going to switch your claim.

They are morally guilty for being sick fucks, they may or may not be guilty in the criminal justice system. See the difference?

So I once again ask you for the evidence you dodged the last time. Can you provide specific and untainted proof that they were there to "fuck a kid". Or do you enjoy making invalid assumptions? Again, don't answer. We've seen enough to know the answer.

The entire series of To Catch A Predator.

Dude, seriously, if you don't know what a word means, don't use it. Either he WILL be treated as an innocent when he is found not guilty as you claim, or you are wrong. You keep amending and amending your claim because you don't have a better argument. That's not a strawman. That's a fact. Or are you going to now magically claim you didn't say all that it takes to recover from an accusation of guilty is a not guilty claim.

Fallacy of equivocation: guilty from the legal realm is not equatable to guilty in the moral / social realm. You keep jumping from one meaning of the word to the other, and that's a fallacy.

Dateline is not entrapping anyone..that is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard..and this DA is a moron..maybe he was in the same class with the Durham DA...he needs to be removed as well though as he clearly has no understanding of the law

At what point did you get the impression that the DA was claiming entrapment? This is an evidentiary problem, not an entrapment problem.

I don't think it's the DA that's lacking a foundation in the law. He never claimed anything was entrapment. He claimed that the evidence was compromised.

And it is.

You could still take their picture as long as you aren't looking up their skirt to do so. Or at least as long as you are not doing so on purpose and as long as you make no money from it.

The press can take and publish their picture as long as they are in normal control of their actions. If they are not in control of their own actions such as falling down then you have to get a release. Under many conditions a release is asked for anyway just to CYA but that isn't required. It doesn't matter if a profit is involved. Just think if a TV network had to get permission from everyone in the stadium. Now if someone gets hit with a ball and is bleeding that would be questionable because they didn't choose to bleed. However most tickets have a waiver printed on them for those occasions.

So the only pictures that would be questionable would be those where the police take the man down and cuff and stuff him. But that is done outside and can be covered as an arrest story just like any arrest. Every night the news shows people getting cuffed and stuffed.

The problem is you are still treating civil law as something sorta like criminal law. It isn't. For instance, prove innocence. There is no such thing as innocent in civil law. There's no such thing as guilty.

I know that it isn't, but the same concepts still apply even if the exact terminology may or may not be there. One is 'guilty' of the offenses the aggrieved party has levied against them or they are 'not guilty'.

I think you did something wrong, you think you didn't. We both put on our cases. I argue why you're wrong. You argue why you're not wrong. Whoever is more believeable wins. There is no presumption one way or the other. Whoever, at the end of the day, seems to have the more likely story, wins.

But that is where I believe you are incorrect. The defendant has to prove (even if this is in the sense that their story is more believable) that what the plaintiff is claiming is incorrect. This DOES place a burden against the defendant, even if it is not as literal as I claimed it to be earlier.

I agreed that their guilt should be determined at a fair trial. I have said this many times in fact. However, I do not agree with the supposition that NBC liking money means that these people were framed/entrapped as others have already argued.

You are creating what's called a false dilemma. You don't seem to see the fallacy there, but it's there. People are simply admitting to a healthy level of suspicion. The same level of suspicion that made the DA in one of these episodes to drop all charges. According to you, if they drop the charges they are innocent.



Are you saying that being proven guilty in civil court didn't cast more than an acceptable level of doubt on his actual innocence without taking into account his behavior during the entire debacle?

You're changing your argument. You claimed that absent a conviction that they would be fine. I accept you were wrong.


I said their likely guilty. Strawman denied. Besides, that's your argument that I can't substantiate proven innocence as innocence because you want to muddle the word's meaning.

You SAID they are likely guilty. You argued that that they are definitely guilty. I can't help it if you can't keep your dishonest arguments staight. That's you're problem.

No, I don't muddle words. That's why you're getting upset. You said that that if they are not found guilty they are innocent. By that argument, one entire show was full of innocent people. You've claimed that jusst watching the show proves everyone in is guilty. Shally I quote you? The two arguments are necessarily contradictory. I know you don't recognize that, but you really should step back and try, because we all do and you're embarrassing yourself.



Because the evidence says they are. The DA being afraid of defense strategy in light of a suicide does not change that fact. Guilty has two different meanings in this debate, you want to use the one that is most acceptable to you at the time. Sorry, but I'm not blind.

Ha. You're the one who said the PUBLIC would treat you as innocent if you are not found guilty. I recognize that legal guilt has NOTHING to do with how the public will treat you.

Meanwhile, the dropping of the charges has nothing to do with the suicide. It was related to evidenenciary issues. But hey don't bother to educated yourself on your claims. That would make too mcuh sense.




The argument being made by the... 'situation' is a fallacy: it assumes that the woman is an irrational bunghole with no faith in the justice system because that's what it requires to be correct. Denied.

You just said that you have no faith in the justice system and denied the innocence of men that were never charged as a result of evidenciary problems. That's the justice system. Don't you think that you should stop calling people who act EXACTLY like you names?

Or are you claiming that an entire episode was not found guilty by the justice system of which the district attorney is a part?

This stuff is great. You seem to truly being struggling with the recognition that when it suits you, you reject the results from the justice system while saying that anyone that would dos so is "an irrational bunghole".

wow so they weren't in that county..the crime was still committed in that county when they came to the sting house..did they use the same decoy team in this show as the others I am assuming so?

They are morally guilty for being sick fucks, they may or may not be guilty in the criminal justice system. See the difference?

Um, you claimed that if they are not found guilty by the justice system that the public should treat them as innocent. Shall I quote you?


The entire series of To Catch A Predator.

Ha. Another avoidance. I gues you don't recognize how logic requires skepticism when data is necessarily and intentionally modified before we receive it.



Fallacy of equivocation: guilty from the legal realm is not equatable to guilty in the moral / social realm. You keep jumping from one meaning of the word to the other, and that's a fallacy.

You're the only one that equated the two. Whenever I mention that someone might still treat someone as guilty even after they were not found guilty in court you call them names. Need evidence?

it assumes that the woman is an irrational bunghole with no faith in the justice system

guilty from the legal realm is not equatable to guilty in the moral / social realm.

They are morally guilty for being sick fucks, they may or may not be guilty in the criminal justice system. See the difference?

It's really sad that you cannot understand that the only reason I'm comparing them is because you refuse to recognize the difference whenever it suits you.

I know that it isn't, but the same concepts still apply even if the exact terminology may or may not be there. One is 'guilty' of the offenses the aggrieved party has levied against them or they are 'not guilty'.

Except it's not, because guilty means only criminal acts, not civil ones.

But that is where I believe you are incorrect.

You can believe it all you want, doesn't make you right.

The defendant has to prove (even if this is in the sense that their story is more believable) that what the plaintiff is claiming is incorrect. This DOES place a burden against the defendant, even if it is not as literal as I claimed it to be earlier.

That is COMPLETELY untrue. Are you telling me that I can claim you did ANYTHING, anything at all to me, and unless you can disprove it, I win?

That's just silly, and entirely incorrect. There IS no burden on EITHER party. Each presents his/her/their/its own case, whoever is more believable wins.

Sure you can argue that the defendant has the burden to be "more believable" but so does the plaintiff.

What a "burden" means in legal terms is that there is a presumption to be overcome. In criminal law, there is a presumption that the defendant is innocent. He is presumed to not have done it. The government has the burden in that case. They must sufficiently rebutt the presumption.

In criminal law the defendant is presumed innocent. Thus the prosecution has the burden to rebut that presumption. That's what a burden means.

You seem to believe that in civil law, the case begins with a presumption. That a defendant is presumed liable, and it is the defendant's job to rebut that presumption.

That is just not true. In criminal law you begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent, and the burden is to rebut. Civil law doesn't begin with any presumption, thus there is no "burden" to overcome that presumption. The defendant is not assumed liable. he is not assumed to not be liable. No assumptions or presumptions are made in civil law at the onset.

Since there is no beginning presumption, there is no burden to rebut a presumption.

You are creating what's called a false dilemma. You don't seem to see the fallacy there, but it's there. People are simply admitting to a healthy level of suspicion. The same level of suspicion that made the DA in one of these episodes to drop all charges. According to you, if they drop the charges they are innocent.

No, according to me if they drop all charges they are legally innocent. Morally and socially they are still guilty / likely guilty because Occam says the option that the alleged just wanted to buy a house being sold by the little girl/boy owning it is a stupid and illogical option.

You're changing your argument. You claimed that absent a conviction that they would be fine. I accept you were wrong.


You're flopping around with definitions, that's not my problem if it confuses your.

You SAID they are likely guilty. You argued that that they are definitely guilty. I can't help it if you can't keep your dishonest arguments staight. That's you're problem.

What does that have to do with OJ and the situation you keep trying to claim as applicable to the situation here?

No, I don't muddle words. That's why you're getting upset. You said that that if they are not found guilty they are innocent. By that argument, one entire show was full of innocent people. You've claimed that jusst watching the show proves everyone in is guilty. Shally I quote you? The two arguments are necessarily contradictory. I know you don't recognize that, but you really should step back and try, because we all do and you're embarrassing yourself.

If they are not guilty, they are innocent legally. Morally and socially this may or may not be the case. Guilty has various meanings because it is used in various contexts. I recognize this, you don't. I claim that watching the show proves the likelihood of their guilt, strawman denied.

Ha. You're the one who said the PUBLIC would treat you as innocent if you are not found guilty. I recognize that legal guilt has NOTHING to do with how the public will treat you.

Someone is proven legally guilty of murder. According to you this has nothing to do with how the population will treat them afterwards.

Meanwhile, the dropping of the charges has nothing to do with the suicide. It was related to evidenenciary issues. But hey don't bother to educated yourself on your claims. That would make too mcuh sense.

Evidence and the suicide, evidence that a good defense attorney can call into question, especially in light of the later suicide that rocked the community. The suicide is 'proof' of the maliciousness of the show and how NBC wanted to get ratings at the expense of people's lives, or that's what a defense attorney would argue. See how easy it is to connect something?

You just said that you have no faith in the justice system and denied the innocence of men that were never charged as a result of evidenciary problems. That's the justice system. Don't you think that you should stop calling people who act EXACTLY like you names?

No, that's called exaggeration.

Or are you claiming that an entire episode was not found guilty by the justice system of which the district attorney is a part?

They're innocent because they're not legally guilty; in the eyes of society this may be different. As I've said a few dozen times already.

They're innocent because they're not legally guilty; in the eyes of society this may be different. As I've said a few dozen times already.

Their reputations and lives will be in fine shape if they are proven innocent of the charges levied against them.
You can't be proven innocent. You can only not be found guilty. In the case of these individuals that are no longer being charged, do you agree that they are innocent and no one should hold anything against them? No. You've already said no. And you know what, they'll never be proven "more" innocent because they are not being charged. That's as innocent as you get in law.
If you are not guilty you are innocent.

I love when people forget their own arguments.

Except it's not, because guilty means only criminal acts, not civil ones.


Did I not just say that regardless of their existence in legal lexicon that the underlying concepts are still there?


That is COMPLETELY untrue. Are you telling me that I can claim you did ANYTHING, anything at all to me, and unless you can disprove it, I win?

If my case has standing before the judge then yes I can.

That's just silly, and entirely incorrect. There IS no burden on EITHER party. Each presents his/her/their/its own case, whoever is more believable wins.

Sure you can argue that the defendant has the burden to be "more believable" but so does the plaintiff.

What a "burden" means in legal terms is that there is a presumption to be overcome. In criminal law, there is a presumption that the defendant is innocent. He is presumed to not have done it. The government has the burden in that case. They must sufficiently rebutt the presumption.

Indeed, the law favors the defendant in the criminal system, in the civil system it does not. It means that the defendant has to prove the allegations false, otherwise they are true. As I already said this is not as explicitly against the defendant as I claimed earlier, but the effects of even no equal burden are obvious and immense.

I love when people forget their own arguments.

Fallacy of equivocation as I have already pointed out: your version of guilty changes whenever it suits you.

No, according to me if they drop all charges they are legally innocent. Morally and socially they are still guilty / likely guilty because Occam says the option that the alleged just wanted to buy a house being sold by the little girl/boy owning it is a stupid and illogical option.

See, where I quote you saying the opposite. Meanwhile, Occam requires you to incorporate all evidence, something you refuse to do.


You're flopping around with definitions, that's not my problem if it confuses your.

Am I? My argument has been the same all along. You've been flopping from claiming that society MUST rely on the law to determine innocence and guilt to claiming that they are seperate.

The irony of your claims are delicious. If I'm flipping please prove it.

What does that have to do with OJ and the situation you keep trying to claim as applicable to the situation here?

Because you claimed that if you are found not gulty that people will treat you as innocent. Again, you forgot your argument. Take notes if you need.



If they are not guilty, they are innocent legally. Morally and socially this may or may not be the case. Guilty has various meanings because it is used in various contexts. I recognize this, you don't. I claim that watching the show proves the likelihood of their guilt, strawman denied.

Again, you forgot that you said the opposite I see. It was what started our argument. Several people including myself pointed out they are not equal. Now you're trying to bug bunny me. Unfortunately, your argument only makes sense in cartoons.



Someone is proven legally guilty of murder. According to you this has nothing to do with how the population will treat them afterwards.

No, that's not what I said. You fail at logic. I said if they are not proven legally guilty it doesn't mean they will be treated as innocent. What you said IS NOT the equivalent.



Evidence and the suicide, evidence that a good defense attorney can call into question, especially in light of the later suicide that rocked the community. The suicide is 'proof' of the maliciousness of the show and how NBC wanted to get ratings at the expense of people's lives, or that's what a defense attorney would argue. See how easy it is to connect something?

The suicide has nothing to do with the cases. It would not be admissable. At all. It's not proof of anything regarding the guilt or innocence of the individuals. The suicide was not cited as the reasoning. It was evidenciary problems that were cited. Evidenciary problems that we're all talking about, and that are unrelated to the suicide. Your lack of understanding has no bearing on the facts.



No, that's called exaggeration.

No, that's called you saying one thing then the opposite than the opposite every two minutes. It's hilarious, but it really makes your argument suck.



They're innocent because they're not legally guilty; in the eyes of society this may be different. As I've said a few dozen times already.

I pointed out that you've said the opposite several times. You really suck at this. Especially since I can quote you. It's like arguing with bugs bunny except when he switches sides it works.

Fallacy of equivocation as I have already pointed out: your version of guilty changes whenever it suits you.

Ha. So the fallacy of equivocation is when YOU claim your reputation will be returned if the LAW proves you innocent, and when I clarify to make CERTAIN we are discussing the law, you reply not guilty means innocent We were discussing the legal result. You made a statment. If there was a fallacy it was yours. But hey, try throwing that one out there. You're really fooling someone.

So hilarious. I mean, this stuff is delicious. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Indeed, the law favors the defendant in the criminal system, in the civil system it does not. It means that the defendant has to prove the allegations false, otherwise they are true.

And that is COMPLETELY wrong. Absolutly wrong. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with Summary Judgment. A defendant can win summary judgement if he demonstrates that the plaintiff has not demonstrate sufficient facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

If your claim of "the plaintiff's claim is assumed true' was accurate, a defendant could NEVER win summary judgement. But they do. All the time. Your contention that plaintiff's claims are presumed true is just false. It's just wrong.

If plaintiff's claims are presumed true by default then there would be no such thing as a defendant's motion for summary judgement, because the whole basis for summary judgement is a motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate enough facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

And that is COMPLETELY wrong. Absolutly wrong. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with Summary Judgment. A defendant can win summary judgement if he demonstrates that the plaintiff has not demonstrate sufficient facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

If your claim of "the plaintiff's claim is assumed true' was accurate, a defendant could NEVER win summary judgement. But they do. All the time. Your contention that plaintiff's claims are presumed true is just false. It's just wrong.

If plaintiff's claims are presumed true by default then there would be no such thing as a defendant's motion for summary judgement, because the whole basis for summary judgement is a motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate enough facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

He's killing me. I wasn't laughing at first, but this stuff is great. This guy seriously doesn't seem to be capable of saying "oops, I'm wrong."

At first I thought he was just being stubborn, but now I'm beginning to wonder if he understands our replies at all. I mean this stuff is sooooo far from logical that I can't stop giggling.

See, where I quote you saying the opposite. Meanwhile, Occam requires you to incorporate all evidence, something you refuse to do.

I have, which is why Occam slices away at the J00s conspiring with various law enforcement departments to frame hundreds of men for soliciting sex from minors.

Am I? My argument has been the same all along. You've been flopping from claiming that society MUST rely on the law to determine innocence and guilt to claiming that they are seperate.

Society does rely on the law to determine innocence and guilt so that communities of lynch mobs don't form to take care of alleged criminals.

Someone who is absolutely innocent of murder because the evidence sided with him is innocent, someone who is innocent because of a technicality is not equal to the former in terms of innocence save in the legal realm. People who insist upon a persons guilt regardless of the evidence staring them in the face to the contrary are not people I'm worried about and neither are they representative of even a healthy minority of the US or world population.

Because you claimed that if you are found not gulty that people will treat you as innocent. Again, you forgot your argument. Take notes if you need.

People will treat you as innocent if you are indeed innocent. If you are guilty then people treat you as such. In the lovable gray area that you both ignore when making your arguments but also invoke as a way to chip away at everything I say, things are different. Someone who is guilty but only based upon what can be best described as spurious legal proceedings are not always treated as guilty, just as those innocent based on faults in the legal system are not necessarily viewed as innocent.

No, that's not what I said. You fail at logic. I said if they are not proven legally guilty it doesn't mean they will be treated as innocent. What you said IS NOT the equivalent.

You said their legal verdict had no impact. You're obviously wrong because your logic leads to absurd conclusions.

The suicide has nothing to do with the cases. It would not be admissable. At all. It's not proof of anything regarding the guilt or innocence of the individuals. The suicide was not cited as the reasoning. It was evidenciary problems that were cited. Evidenciary problems that we're all talking about, and that are unrelated to the suicide. Your lack of understanding has no bearing on the facts.

Lawyers argue entrapment and tainted evidence. The nature of the suicide underscores that 'fact.' Normally this wouldn't matter because no one has any reasonable proof that NBC has ever done anything wrong, but the death of a public figure and the backlash of a community against the city manager calls this image into question even if there is in actuality, nothing there. It's not hard to connect the dots you know.

No, that's called you saying one thing then the opposite than the opposite every two minutes. It's hilarious, but it really makes your argument suck.

Look up the definition of the word 'exaggeration' in the dictionary if you think the word doesn't exist.

I pointed out that you've said the opposite several times. You really suck at this. Especially since I can quote you. It's like arguing with bugs bunny except when he switches sides it works.

I've said the opposite because you want to switch the context your using when using the word guilty. That is fallacy of equivocation, and you are wrong.

Ha. So the fallacy of equivocation is when YOU claim your reputation will be returned if the LAW proves you innocent, and when I clarify to make CERTAIN we are discussing the law, you reply not guilty means innocent We were discussing the legal result. You made a statment. If there was a fallacy it was yours. But hey, try throwing that one out there. You're really fooling someone.

So hilarious. I mean, this stuff is delicious. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Fallacy of equivocation is taking a word and giving it a different meaning to suit your purposes. Guilty means guilty in the legal realm, but it may or may not mean the same thing in the socio-ethical realm, but you insist otherwise.

Fallacy of equivocation is taking a word and giving it a different meaning to suit your purposes. Guilty means guilty in the legal realm, but it may or may not mean the same thing in the socio-ethical realm, but you insist otherwise.

I know what it means. However, given the context, the only way it could have two meanings is if you were trying to give it that without being clear you were switching. As such, the fallacy would be yours. I never switched meanings. I was talking about legal meanings the entire time, and I made that clear.

So now I take it you're claiming you never said the legal outcome would cause people to let the case go and let their life go back to normal. Good to know. Of course, we know that you actually posted the opposite, but what does intellectual honesty have to do with debate, right?

And that is COMPLETELY wrong. Absolutly wrong. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with Summary Judgment. A defendant can win summary judgement if he demonstrates that the plaintiff has not demonstrate sufficient facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

And? Does this change at all what I've said that the burden is still moreso on the defendant in the civil realm than in the criminal?

If your claim of "the plaintiff's claim is assumed true' was accurate, a defendant could NEVER win summary judgement. But they do. All the time. Your contention that plaintiff's claims are presumed true is just false. It's just wrong.

This never touches on the underlying argument that the defendant has a harder time winning in civil matters than in criminal matters. Granted my lack of knowledge is glaring when it comes to matters of technicality, but you have yet to disprove my assertion that the burden's shift in civil matters makes a substantial difference, only nitpick on my ignorance of matters dealing with technicality.

If plaintiff's claims are presumed true by default then there would be no such thing as a defendant's motion for summary judgement, because the whole basis for summary judgement is a motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate enough facts so that a jury could find in his favor.

See above.

I know what it means. However, given the context, the only way it could have two meanings is if you were trying to give it that without being clear you were switching. As such, the fallacy would be yours. I never switched meanings. I was talking about legal meanings the entire time, and I made that clear.

No, by mentioning guilt in the social sense you mean something other than the legal sense. Bouncing between the two as if they are the same is where you committed the fallacy.

So now I take it you're claiming you never said the legal outcome would cause people to let the case go and let their life go back to normal. Good to know. Of course, we know that you actually posted the opposite, but what does intellectual honesty have to do with debate, right?

The assumption was that they were either absolutely guilty or absolutely innocent, that being the case my assumption that their social standing would return to normal is true. The only time this could be false was if the majority of Americans / people were irrational morons naturally suspicious of any and all and who view the legal system as a formality between them an the rope. In the gray area that you invoke but deny at the same time this is not the case, but those areas were never my starting position.

And? Does this change at all what I've said that the burden is still moreso on the defendant in the civil realm than in the criminal?

That's actually not what you said, at all. Nothing about "moreso" at all. You said:

it means that the defendant has to prove the allegations false, otherwise they are true.

Which is completely different.

This never touches on the underlying argument that the defendant has a harder time winning in civil matters than in criminal matters.

Again, that isn't actually what you said. If you meant to say that you should have said that, not the nonsense you did about how the defendant is required to prove allegations false, because otherwise they are true, which is nonsense, and has been disproven already through the existance of defendant's summary judgement motions.

If you didn't mean to say that, well then you shouldn't have said it huh?

Granted my lack of knowledge is glaring when it comes to matters of technicality,

Then maybe you should figure it out BEFORE talking. Again, if what you said isn't what you meant to say, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Perhaps you should refrain from talking about topics you admit you don't know about?

but you have yet to disprove my assertion that the burden's shift in civil matters makes a substantial difference, only nitpick on my ignorance of matters dealing with technicality.

Two things here. One, you might not be technically sophisticated in these matters, but I am. And I assume that you actually know what the fuck your'e talking about, and when you say something, I'm going to assume you mean it. Saying something and then responding to criticism with "oh, well I didn't REALLY mean that, I don't know the vocabulary" is a shitty way to argue. Legal terms have legal meanings, and whether you realize it or not, when you use specific words, you are saying specific things.

Now maybe what you're trying to say and what you're actually saying aren't the same thing, but that's your problem, not mine.

Secondly, I don't know what bizarre reality you live in where it becomes MY responsibility to disprove YOUR claims. YOU made them, go find some rule of civil procedure that backs it up. Go cite a case. Go find something. What makes you so damned special where your words, which are, as you admit, unsophisticated and given with a lack of knowledge, are assumed correct based purely on the magnificence of your brilliance.

Because, in the real world, when you make a claim, you get to prove it. And if not, then you're a child molester who rapes 12 year old girls.

How do I know that? Why because I said so, of course. Now disprove it.

And to be really, REALLY frank, the whole thing about aspiring to be a lawyer? If this is the width and depth of your legal capabilities, I would strongly suggest picking a different career because, honestly, this is kind of pathetic, and legal arguments demonstrating this severe lack of legal sophistication will get you eatten alive.

No, by mentioning guilt in the social sense you mean something other than the legal sense. Bouncing between the two as if they are the same is where you committed the fallacy.

Um, again. I didn't. You did. I pointed out there is only one place where anything is proven and they don't have a verdict of innocent. Meanwhile, you claimed that in the social sense we must rely on the legal sense or we are "amoral bastards" and several other choice terms or did you forget?


The assumption was that they were either absolutely guilty or absolutely innocent, that being the case my assumption that their social standing would return to normal is true. The only time this could be false was if the majority of Americans / people were irrational morons naturally suspicious of any and all and who view the legal system as a formality between them an the rope. In the gray area that you invoke but deny at the same time this is not the case, but those areas were never my starting position.

Ha. So you were creating a false dichotomy? You know that's a fallacy, yeah?

How do you think keeping on getting caught flipping your argument helps your credibility?

Until he shot himself.

He didn't go to the house
He was not going to have sex with the "kid".
He did nothing.

I have, which is why Occam slices away at the J00s conspiring with various law enforcement departments to frame hundreds of men for soliciting sex from minors.

We're not talking about any conspiracy. It only takes one over zealous person for this to be a problem. It doesn't have to be 100s. One is plenty. Since you've ignored all of the evidence that demonstrates the law also regards this as a evidenciary problem, I guess you're not actually attempting to incorporate all evidence.

Occam's requires you to incorporate ALL evidence. Not just convenient evidence. Face it, kid, you're getting pounded in this debate on every point. You don't know what entrapment is, you don't know what not guilty means, you don't know how to apply fallacies, you don't know what Occam's actually implies, you don't know what your own argument is. You fail on every front. Every one.


Society does rely on the law to determine innocence and guilt so that communities of lynch mobs don't form to take care of alleged criminals.

Wow, that would be great if you'd hadn't claimed they did.


Someone who is absolutely innocent of murder because the evidence sided with him is innocent, someone who is innocent because of a technicality is not equal to the former in terms of innocence save in the legal realm. People who insist upon a persons guilt regardless of the evidence staring them in the face to the contrary are not people I'm worried about and neither are they representative of even a healthy minority of the US or world population.

You don't get it. The law does not distinguish. You are either guilty or not guilty. There is no "proven innocent". And there will be no exploration of guilt or innocence other than in the court system. You might be surprised by this, but there really is no way for you to present evidence to the general public unless you own your own newpaper or people actually have some reason to read a book by you.



People will treat you as innocent if you are indeed innocent. If you are guilty then people treat you as such. In the lovable gray area that you both ignore when making your arguments but also invoke as a way to chip away at everything I say, things are different. Someone who is guilty but only based upon what can be best described as spurious legal proceedings are not always treated as guilty, just as those innocent based on faults in the legal system are not necessarily viewed as innocent.

You didn't say anything about actually being innocent. We were talking about legality. You were the one who said the public should reasonably trust the law. Need quotes? Hmmm... let's see if I've got one.

Let's see if I can find a case where you said people, civilians, must rely on the law to determine guilt or innocence or be "irrational bungholes".

it assumes that the woman is an irrational bunghole with no faith in the justice system



You said their legal verdict had no impact. You're obviously wrong because your logic leads to absurd conclusions.

No, I didn't. You fail on this. I said the legal verdict does not prove innocene either legally or socially. However, go ahead and quote me if you can. I say you're lying.


Lawyers argue entrapment and tainted evidence. The nature of the suicide underscores that 'fact.' Normally this wouldn't matter because no one has any reasonable proof that NBC has ever done anything wrong, but the death of a public figure and the backlash of a community against the city manager calls this image into question even if there is in actuality, nothing there. It's not hard to connect the dots you know.

Ha. You keep making this assertion, but it has NOTHING to do with the reasons giving by the DA for dropping the charges. So much for Occam's, eh?


Look up the definition of the word 'exaggeration' in the dictionary if you think the word doesn't exist.

Hilarious. You fail so badly. You know dropping arguments is evidence of a flawed argument. But, hey, don't stop. I love winning in debate even if you're handing it to me.



I've said the opposite because you want to switch the context your using when using the word guilty. That is fallacy of equivocation, and you are wrong.

Ha. Just ha. Does intellectual dishonesty normally work for you? Because here we have the quote function?

it assumes that the woman is an irrational bunghole with no faith in the justice system

Now, which of us said social situations MUST use the legal verdict?

That's actually not what you said, at all. Nothing about "moreso" at all. You said:



Which is completely different.

I was just replying to this when I saw your reply. He just changes his argument every time you destroy one of his claims. He just pretends to say something else. It's really pretty sad, but hopefully, you're having as much fun as I am.

That's actually not what you said, at all. Nothing about "moreso" at all. You said:



Which is completely different.

The underlying argument is the same. Which is what I've been trying to get at. All you've done so far is nitpick endlessly without actually touching on my point at all.

Again, that isn't actually what you said. If you meant to say that you should have said that, not the nonsense you did about how the defendant is required to prove allegations false, because otherwise they are true, which is nonsense, and has been disproven already through the existance of defendant's summary judgement motions.

So they don't have to rebut the plaintiff's assertions do they? Well yes they do.

Then maybe you should figure it out BEFORE talking. Again, if what you said isn't what you meant to say, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Perhaps you should refrain from talking about topics you admit you don't know about?

I'm still right because you've yet to address the argument. What about prima facie cases? Forgot conveniently about those haven't you.

Two things here. One, you might not be technically sophisticated in these matters, but I am. And I assume that you actually know what the fuck your'e talking about, and when you say something, I'm going to assume you mean it. Saying something and then responding to criticism with "oh, well I didn't REALLY mean that, I don't know the vocabulary" is a shitty way to argue. Legal terms have legal meanings, and whether you realize it or not, when you use specific words, you are saying specific things.

High horse, get off it. I said I was ignorant in technical matters, that much is true. The overarching argument that the defendant is under a greater burden however, is not something I am wrong with. I have in fact said several times long prior to this that my technical deficiencies aside the effects of the burden shift are obvious. Yet you've forgotten about that because sounding smart is more important than being right.

Now maybe what you're trying to say and what you're actually saying aren't the same thing, but that's your problem, not mine.


Read above, and address the actual argument.

The underlying argument is the same. Which is what I've been trying to get at. All you've done so far is nitpick endlessly without actually touching on my point at all.

You keep saying that. If you'd said what you claimed, he'd have never argued with you. You didn't. You said that the defendent had to prove their "innocence". That's not a subtle difference. Lying about what you said now, just makes your argument less credible.


So they don't have to rebut the plaintiff's assertions do they? Well yes they do.

If the plaintiff's assertions have adequate evidence. Yes, they do. If they don't meet the burden, then the have to rebutt nothing.



I'm still right because you've yet to address the argument. What about prima facie cases? Forgot conveniently about those haven't you.



High horse, get off it. I said I was ignorant in technical matters, that much is true. The overarching argument that the defendant is under a greater burden however, is not something I am wrong with. I have in fact said several times long prior to this that my technical deficiencies aside the effects of the burden shift are obvious. Yet you've forgotten about that because sounding smart is more important than being right.

Then stop speaking. You have made claims in a technical arena. If you can't be arsed to actually learn how to speak, don't get mad at others because you suck at actually voicing your argument. That's your problem to fix. Until you do, you lose the argument to your ignorance of the subject and inattention to your posts.


Read above, and address the actual argument.

Your words are part of the argument. If you don't know how to speak intelligibly that is a problem with your argument. It's not for us to decipher your meaning, but for you to present it.

Read.
..because the men drive to the house under their own will where they believe a minor is waiting...
"Some other suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house.

Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County, who allegedly engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy.

As police knocked at his door and a “Dateline” camera crew waited in the street"

He didn't go to the house.

Um, again. I didn't. You did. I pointed out there is only one place where anything is proven and they don't have a verdict of innocent. Meanwhile, you claimed that in the social sense we must rely on the legal sense or we are "amoral bastards" and several other choice terms or did you forget?

Yes, you did, and you continue to do so as if it's a sign of cleverness on your part. "Hah, they're guilty but they're not!" is not an argument no matter how many times you say it is.

Ha. So you were creating a false dichotomy? You know that's a fallacy, yeah?

So you can be part guilty or part innocent of a crime (singular) in the criminal justice system now?

The underlying argument is the same. Which is what I've been trying to get at. All you've done so far is nitpick endlessly without actually touching on my point at all.

Mainly because you can't seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. When you figure that out, let me know.

So they don't have to rebut the plaintiff's assertions do they? Well yes they do.

Not always. In fact, a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss makes no mention of any rebuttal arguments what so ever. Again, you argument has been basically this:

"whatever the plaintiff says is assumed true, until the defendant proves it otherwise."

That is what you're trying to say, right? That's your argument? Answer me this then, how does a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss work? Just a brief explanation will do, explain to me how a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss works if all assertions by the plaintiff are assumed true.

Likewise, just do me a favor, and explain to me where in a 12(b)(6) motion by a defendant does that defendant attempt to rebut the claims? Because if a claim can be dismissed without rebuttal, based purely on the claims of the plaintiff, well, then I guess they're not assumed to be true, are they?

So tell me, how's a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings work?

I'm still right because you've yet to address the argument.

Consider it addressed, how does a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings work if the plaintiff's assertions are assumed true?

What about prima facie cases? Forgot conveniently about those haven't you.

Forgot about them? No. Know what they actually mean? Yes.


High horse, get off it. I said I was ignorant in technical matters, that much is true. The overarching argument that the defendant is under a greater burden however, is not something I am wrong with.

Yes, it is. Because you're wrong.

I have in fact said several times long prior to this that my technical deficiencies aside the effects of the burden shift are obvious. Yet you've forgotten about that because sounding smart is more important than being right.

Fortunatly for me I'm capable of both sounding smart AND being right. Neither skill which you have mastered.

Read above, and address the actual argument.

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings. Explain it.

And of course if you want to back off your initial statement of "the defendant has to disprove the assumed true claims of the plaintiff" and to somehow make it into this very broad argument of "it's harder for a defendant to win a civil trial than a criminal one", may I respond with a "no shit" and point out that this has to do with different standards of proof, and not some amorphous burden shift, considering you have yet to explain what the burden is.

The fact is, this claim is total lunacy, the idea that a claim is assumed true until rebutted. It's nonsense. If it were true all I would have to do is file a claim that says "the defendant negligently caused a car accident which caused damage to my car" and that is assumed true.

All I have to say is "he caused an accident and damaged my car" and that's enough and now the defendant has to prove that untrue.

I wouldn't have to allege any facts to substantiate that the defendant acted neglegently.

Or that this negligence caused an accident.

Or that my car was damaged in the accident.

Or that there was even an accident at all

Or that I even own a car.

The idea that it is just assumed true because I said it is...wrong. It's just wrong. the fact that this is wrong is the entirety of the point of rule 12(b)(6)

We're not talking about any conspiracy. It only takes one over zealous person for this to be a problem. It doesn't have to be 100s. One is plenty. Since you've ignored all of the evidence that demonstrates the law also regards this as a evidenciary problem, I guess you're not actually attempting to incorporate all evidence.

The DA regards this as an evidenciary problem for the reasons I outlined earlier. Occam took that into account, Occam also took into account the fact no other DAs had problems prosecuting the cases presented to them with TCAP as evidence. What is more likely? That there is an inherent flaw, or that in one instance unforeseen circumstances made prosecuting current and future pedophiles an untenable position?

You don't get it. The law does not distinguish. You are either guilty or not guilty. There is no "proven innocent". And there will be no exploration of guilt or innocence other than in the court system. You might be surprised by this, but there really is no way for you to present evidence to the general public unless you own your own newpaper or people actually have some reason to read a book by you.

If you are not guilty then you are not innocent in the eyes of society? No? Because that is what you're saying.

You didn't say anything about actually being innocent. We were talking about legality. You were the one who said the public should reasonably trust the law. Need quotes? Hmmm... let's see if I've got one.


What are you smoking? I said people should reasonably trust the law, does that there imply that if someone was proven not guilty because someone bought off the judge that no one should bat an eye? Well yes it does when we listen to your strawman.

Let's see if I can find a case where you said people, civilians, must rely on the law to determine guilt or innocence or be "irrational bungholes".


Yes, because your women responded to the Guy in a manner suggesting that the legal proceedings are just a worthless sham, and hence extended that woman to be indicative of everyone and hence how no one's reputation could ever be repaired if they were found innocent of a crime. It's called ridiculing your for assuming that I will accept unsubstantiated claims.

No, I didn't. You fail on this. I said the legal verdict does not prove innocene either legally or socially. However, go ahead and quote me if you can. I say you're lying.


So I am guilty but I am innocent and vice versa under your logic? Nice to know dat dere. Too bad that I will be treated like I am guilty of murder if I am found to be guilty of murder and thus your premise is denied.

Ha. You keep making this assertion, but it has NOTHING to do with the reasons giving by the DA for dropping the charges. So much for Occam's, eh?

<Occam> You don't even know who I am.

Hilarious. You fail so badly. You know dropping arguments is evidence of a flawed argument. But, hey, don't stop. I love winning in debate even if you're handing it to me.

So you still won't look up the word?

Now, which of us said social situations MUST use the legal verdict?

See above as to how your woman is a fallacious construct.

Yes, you did, and you continue to do so as if it's a sign of cleverness on your part. "Hah, they're guilty but they're not!" is not an argument no matter how many times you say it is.

Quote me or quit lying. I never made that argument ever. This is just another attempt by you to obscure the issue. I pointed out that being found not guilty doesn't change how people see you. You were claiming the opposite until about a page ago.


So you can be part guilty or part innocent of a crime (singular) in the criminal justice system now?

In the criminal justice system you are either guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. That you keep mentioning it is your ignorance.

You said the law finds people "all the way innocent". They don't. Ever. They don't even try.

In fact, let us just settle this right now. You assume you know how the civil justice system works, right? Alright.

I'm suing you (or rather, let's say you're a lawyer, and I'm suing your client).

My complaint states only the following, and nothing more "the defendant negligently caused an accident which resulted in damage to my car".

That is it. Nothing more. That is the entirety of the complaint.

What do you do next, and do you now have to rebut this claim? Is it your obligation to now rebut this position? Do you have options other than attempt to rebut this position? Is it possible to have this case dismissed without making any attempt to disprove this statement?

What is your next step?

The DA regards this as an evidenciary problem for the reasons I outlined earlier. Occam took that into account, Occam also took into account the fact no other DAs had problems prosecuting the cases presented to them with TCAP as evidence. What is more likely? That there is an inherent flaw, or that in one instance unforeseen circumstances made prosecuting current and future pedophiles an untenable position?



If you are not guilty then you are not innocent in the eyes of society? No? Because that is what you're saying.



What are you smoking? I said people should reasonably trust the law, does that there imply that if someone was proven not guilty because someone bought off the judge that no one should bat an eye? Well yes it does when we listen to your strawman.



Yes, because your women responded to the Guy in a manner suggesting that the legal proceedings are just a worthless sham, and hence extended that woman to be indicative of everyone and hence how no one's reputation could ever be repaired if they were found innocent of a crime. It's called ridiculing your for assuming that I will accept unsubstantiated claims.



So I am guilty but I am innocent and vice versa under your logic? Nice to know dat dere. Too bad that I will be treated like I am guilty of murder if I am found to be guilty of murder and thus your premise is denied.



<Occam> You don't even know who I am.



So you still won't look up the word?



See above as to how your woman is a fallacious construct.


This stuff is gold. Don't stop. My side aches but don't stop. With one poster you're simultaneously arguing that the law finds people completely innocent and that that legal and social innocence are not the same, but that a woman who doesn't listen to the legal verdict is a fool among other things. It's good stuff.

Meanwhile, you're arguing that it's the other poster's fault that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and that he didn't guess that and start figuring out that your misuse of, well, everything about the law actually meant something different.

I'm serious. Post again. I seriously wait with bated breath to see if the next post will top the last post's ridiculous nature.

You keep saying that. If you'd said what you claimed, he'd have never argued with you. You didn't. You said that the defendent had to prove their "innocence". That's not a subtle difference. Lying about what you said now, just makes your argument less credible.

They do have to prove their innocence. Prima Facie cases. When the plaintiff's cases have legal standing and won't be thrown out because the jury was emotionally compromised by a snazzy lawyer. That the underlying premise, that the defendant has more of a burden in order to win than in criminal matters, something I clarified pages ago so you can stop accusing me of lying, is still true.

Then stop speaking. You have made claims in a technical arena. If you can't be arsed to actually learn how to speak, don't get mad at others because you suck at actually voicing your argument. That's your problem to fix. Until you do, you lose the argument to your ignorance of the subject and inattention to your posts.


I also clarified, sooo long ago that the overarching premise is still valid despite my issues with technical ignorance. Neither you nor Neo have bothered to address this, so I will just accept the concession and move on.

Quote me or quit lying. I never made that argument ever. This is just another attempt by you to obscure the issue. I pointed out that being found not guilty doesn't change how people see you. You were claiming the opposite until about a page ago.


And you're wrong. If you're guilty people will treat you as guilty (since you have such issues with common sense I'll clarify - far beyond a reasonable doubt). Just as if you are not-guilty people treat you as not-guilty (the evidence was forged, nonexistent, the actual guy was found, not guilty because you were hell, found not guilty by a group of your peers, you know, SOCIETY!).

In the criminal justice system you are either guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. That you keep mentioning it is your ignorance.

No, it means I like to vary my words because I don't like being repetitive. You can stop being petty now.

You said the law finds people "all the way innocent". They don't. Ever. They don't even try.

So someone didn't commit a murder, could in no way commit the murder, the actual guy was found, blah blah, so he is not absolutely innocent?

They do have to prove their innocence. Prima Facie cases. When the plaintiff's cases have legal standing and won't be thrown out because the jury was emotionally compromised by a snazzy lawyer. That the underlying premise, that the defendant has more of a burden in order to win than in criminal matters, something I clarified pages ago so you can stop accusing me of lying, is still true.



I also clarified, sooo long ago that the overarching premise is still valid despite my issues with technical ignorance. Neither you nor Neo have bothered to address this, so I will just accept the concession and move on.


Pretending your clear claim that the defendent is required to prove innocence and that the burden is on the defendent means something different is lying.

However, even if we pretend it was a mistake, how can you possibly believe that doesn't leave you're argument with no credibility at all? If you cannot understand the basis of the discussion how can you hope to make valid conclusions in that area? Magic beans?

They do have to prove their innocence. Prima Facie cases.

OK, humor me, what exactly is a prima facie case? You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

That the underlying premise, that the defendant has more of a burden in order to win than in criminal matters, something I clarified pages ago

And yet, again, that is not what you said. You said that any claim by the plaintiff is presumed true. That is NOT the same thing WHAT SO EVER.

Not even in the same ballpark.

It is, in fact, something ENTIRELY different.

Neither you nor Neo have bothered to address this.

As I said, how does a 12(b)(6) motion work?

If your entire claim, if your ONLY claim, is that since in a criminal case the prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but in a civil case the plaintiff only has to prove liability more likely than not that it's "easier" for a defendant to win a criminal case than a civil case...if that's ALL you're trying to say, may i respond with a resounding "no fucking shit?"

That still has NOTHING to do with a BURDEN. A burden has a technical meaning. The fact that the plaintiff in a civil case has a lower standard of proof than the prosecution in a criminal case is a standard of proof issue, and has NOTHING what so ever to do with a BURDEN.

Nothing what so ever.

So someone didn't commit a murder, could in no way commit the murder, the actual guy was found, blah blah, so he is not absolutely innocent?

As a matter of law? Nope, never. Nobody is ever innocent as a matter of law. Law does not recognize such a state as "innocent". Merely insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

And you're wrong. If you're guilty people will treat you as guilty (since you have such issues with common sense I'll clarify - far beyond a reasonable doubt). Just as if you are not-guilty people treat you as not-guilty (the evidence was forged, nonexistent, the actual guy was found, not guilty because you were hell, found not guilty by a group of your peers, you know, SOCIETY!).

So you claimed that people will treat you as not guilty if you are found not guilty. A minute ago you claimed you weren't saying that. So I again bring up OJ since he was. He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. That's a fact. So according to your claim people must treat him that way. Oh, wait.


No, it means I like to vary my words because I don't like being repetitive. You can stop being petty now.

It's not petty. You keep claiming that because you vary your words equating them is equivocation. You can't have it both ways.


So someone didn't commit a murder, could in no way commit the murder, the actual guy was found, blah blah, so he is not absolutely innocent?

The law does not find him any more innocent than the guy who is released because of tainted evidence. There is no difference in the eyes of the law.

As a matter of law? Nope, never. Nobody is ever innocent as a matter of law. Law does not recognize such a state as "innocent". Merely insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

Well, amusingly, this started because he claimed you must be either absolutely innocent or absolutely guilty. That he has to use such an extreme case proves he doesn't actually believe what he types. I'm serious. I hope you're enjoying this.

By the way, I found your joke in moderation to be hilarious, but only because of the *ducks* touch. I pictured a shoe narrowly missing.

Mainly because you can't seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. When you figure that out, let me know.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12836334&postcount=324

Forgot about that post didn't you?

The rest I will snip, because it's a red herring to the argument at hand: that the shift of burden has a very obvious effect in the civil legal system and is more difficult on the defendant than in criminal matters.

In fact, let us just settle this right now. You assume you know how the civil justice system works, right? Alright.

I'm suing you (or rather, let's say you're a lawyer, and I'm suing your client).

My complaint states only the following, and nothing more "the defendant negligently caused an accident which resulted in damage to my car".

That is it. Nothing more. That is the entirety of the complaint.

What do you do next, and do you now have to rebut this claim? Is it your obligation to now rebut this position? Do you have options other than attempt to rebut this position? Is it possible to have this case dismissed without making any attempt to disprove this statement?

What is your next step?

Move for summary judgment: the plaintiff has presented no evidence.

You: WAIT! Here's a picture of the defendant masturbating instead of watching the road when he hit me!

Me: Shit.

Judge: Denied, baby.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12836334&postcount=324

Forgot about that post didn't you?

The rest I will snip, because it's a red herring to the argument at hand: that the shift of burden has a very obvious effect in the civil legal system and is more difficult on the defendant than in criminal matters.

How do you not recognize how absurdly stupid that post is? There is no innocent or guilty in civil court. The defendent doesn't have to 'prove' he's innocent. He only has to provide just enough evidence to deny the claim of the plaintiff. It's quite different. It's the difference between being conclusive and simply defeating the other side.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12836334&postcount=324

Forgot about that post didn't you?

No, I didn't forget it. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

The rest I will snip, because it's a red herring to the argument at hand: that the shift of burden has a very obvious effect in the civil legal system and is more difficult on the defendant than in criminal matters.

And I will ask you again, WHAT burden? From where does this burden arise? What does the defendant have the burden to do? When do they have this burden? When do they not have this burden? Is the burden absolute? Is any claim by the plaintiff assumed true? Does the plaintiff have to do something beyond simply making a claim in order for the claim to be considered true?

Of what form is this burden? From where does it arise? You keep saying "there is a burden' but have totally and utterly failed to say exactly what it is a burden to actually DO.

Prove innocence? Do you honestly believe that any claim, ANY CLAIM that a plaintiff makes is assumed true?

I'll ask you again, a plaintiff makes a claim "he negligently caused a car accident which damaged my car". Is this presumed true? What do you do next?

Move for summary judgment: the plaintiff has presented no evidence.

You: WAIT! Here's a picture of the defendant masturbating instead of watching the road when he hit me!

Me: Shit.

Judge: Denied, baby.

You do realize that in your own modified scenario the burden of proof FIRST fell on the plaintiff.

This stuff is gold. Don't stop. My side aches but don't stop. With one poster you're simultaneously arguing that the law finds people completely innocent and that that legal and social innocence are not the same, but that a woman who doesn't listen to the legal verdict is a fool among other things. It's good stuff.

If the law finds you completely innocent in all cases, then your reputation can be repaired. The difference which you invoke and at the same time ignore out of convenience is when your are only innocent based upon spurious ground: you bought off the judge, killed the jury, or there was a massive technicality that meant you were innocent because the legal system in this instance failed. In this area your innocence in the socio-ethical world is in question. The woman is a fool because she ignored the law outright while you also neglected to offer any evidence that she should have reason to doubt it.

If the law finds you completely innocent in all cases, then your reputation can be repaired. The difference which you invoke and at the same time ignore out of convenience is when your are only innocent based upon spurious ground: you bought off the judge, killed the jury, or there was a massive technicality that meant you were innocent because the legal system in this instance failed. In this area your innocence in the socio-ethical world is in question. The woman is a fool because she ignored the law outright while you also neglected to offer any evidence that she should have reason to doubt it.

The law NEVER finds you completely innocent.

Why would the guy in my scenario offer an evidence that there was reason to doubt the law? It wouldn't be in his interest. She would also have no reason at all to believe him. In fact, if she didn't she'd be exactly like you who have claimed repeatedly they are morally guilty.

But hey, keep flipping around this issue. It's really entertaining. This is the debate equivalent of a Jackie Chan fight, except in a fight, it's a bad thing to hold a consistent position.

Move for summary judgment: the plaintiff has presented no evidence.

You: WAIT! Here's a picture of the defendant masturbating instead of watching the road when he hit me!

Me: Shit.

Judge: Denied, baby.

Actually, that is wrong. You can't bring outside evidence into a pleading.

But we'll ignore that for now, and I'll point out one thing. It seems you made the burden to producing evidence on the PLAINTIFF didn't you?

Gee, that's interesting. That would mean that the plaintiff actually has to PROVIDE EVIDENCE to prove their claim true.

That's ENTIRELY different than your initial claim that the plaintiff's claim is assumed true, isn't it? In fact, considering you felt the need to point out that the plaintiff actually has to provide EVIDENCE, aren't you now admitting that your claim that a plaintiff's allegations are assumed true is patently, and absolutly false?

Even though your example is technically wrong (which we're going ot ignore because somehow you seem to feel you're qualified to discuss the rules of civil procedure without actually knowing the rules of civil procedure) RIGHT THERE you had the PLAINTIFF providing evidence.

That is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to your earlier claim that the plaintiff's position is ASSUMED true.

If the law finds you completely innocent in all cases

The law never does. A verdict of innocent does not exist in law. Nobody is ever found innocent. Ever. At all.

So you claimed that people will treat you as not guilty if you are found not guilty. A minute ago you claimed you weren't saying that. So I again bring up OJ since he was. He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. That's a fact. So according to your claim people must treat him that way. Oh, wait.


Claim: If you are proven innocent of the crimes against you then people will treat you as innocent.

-Argument assumes that you are proven innocent; IE, that you were not guilty of the crimes you were tried for.
-Argument assumes that people are rational; IE, that they have faith in the justice system.

Conclusion: Premise is true because people are proven innocent and people do have faith in the justice system.

Your Claim: No, what about OJ?!

-Argument claims things are not always absolute; IE, you may be innocent based upon spurious legal circumstance.
-Argument assumes that the civil and criminal legal systems are entirely analogous; IE, a contradiction was found.

Conclusion: Your reputation will not recover because OJ was still found guilty in a civil system.

What your argument lacks: substantiation that people are irrational and do not trust the justice system; That spurious legal circumstance is common place in the legal system; That people are ignorant of those circumstances if they arise; That the civil and criminal justice systems are analogous entities; That the circumstances surrounding OJ and these men from TCAP are analogous here. Start proving.

[/quote]It's not petty. You keep claiming that because you vary your words equating them is equivocation. You can't have it both ways.
[/quote]

Word variation for the sake of communication and word variation for the sake of winning an argument are two different things. Fallacy of equivocation, again.

The law does not find him any more innocent than the guy who is released because of tainted evidence. There is no difference in the eyes of the law.

You can be absolutely innocent, how is that hard to see?

The law never does. A verdict of innocent does not exist in law. Nobody is ever found innocent. Ever. At all.

You should just save this post. You'll have to post it again.

You can be absolutely innocent, how is that hard to see?

As a matter of fact, yes. As a matter of law, no.

Claim: If you are proven innocent of the crimes against you then people will treat you as innocent.

-Argument assumes that you are proven innocent; IE, that you were not guilty of the crimes you were tried for.
-Argument assumes that people are rational; IE, that they have faith in the justice system.

Conclusion: Premise is true because people are proven innocent and people do have faith in the justice system.

Your Claim: No, what about OJ?!

-Argument claims things are not always absolute; IE, you may be innocent based upon spurious legal circumstance.
-Argument assumes that the civil and criminal legal systems are entirely analogous; IE, a contradiction was found.

Conclusion: Your reputation will not recover because OJ was still found guilty in a civil system.

What your argument lacks: substantiation that people are irrational and do not trust the justice system; That spurious legal circumstance is common place in the legal system; That people are ignorant of those circumstances if they arise; That the civil and criminal justice systems are analogous entities; That the circumstances surrounding OJ and these men from TCAP are analogous here. Start proving.

Word variation for the sake of communication and word variation for the sake of winning an argument are two different things. Fallacy of equivocation, again.



You can be absolutely innocent, how is that hard to see?

You can BE absolutely innocent. You are not however ever PROVEN absolutely innocent. The difference is ENORMOUS. Why is this so hard?

You keep trying to make exceptions to your claims, but in the case of a technicality, you don't get to go further. By your own claim if you don't go further in a legal case then you will continue to be ostracised, or at least can be. So where is this magical place where people go to prove they are absolutely innocent?

Meanwhile, it's time for you stop mentioning things you don't understand. If you don't know what equivocation means, don't use it? And since you are not using properly, whether you can quote the definition or not, you don't understand what it means. Much like your use of legal jargon that you clearly don't understand.

Let's say I'm absolutely innocent of murder. I am accused and there is actually a bunch of evidence that makes me look very guilty. In the early stages, after the media frenzy, the judge discovers a problem with the acquisition of evidence and tosses the case.

Now where is it I go to prove I'm absolutely innocent?

It's easier to post like this then trying to quote several different people at once regarding the same issue.

That being civil law.

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much earlier, therefore technical matters are beyond me as it pertains to citing cases, codes of conduct, and ect. However, that does not mean I am unable to grasp basic concepts.

Other than that I am prone to the occasional miscommunication or muddling of concepts even if the inherently meaning is still the same.

The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff in both realms, criminal and civil. HOWEVER, the underlying fact I was trying to convey is that it is easier for the defendant to win in criminal circumstances than in civil court because the burden of proof is is much lower.

Should I have made myself more clear and worded my responses better in this area? Yes. Am I sorry we had a debate about something that gets down to a miscommunication on my part? Yes. Am I sorry for anything else that I have not mentioned but is my fault? Yes.

And there we go.

You can BE absolutely innocent. You are not however ever PROVEN absolutely innocent. The difference is ENORMOUS. Why is this so hard?

If there is no difference between sorta innocent and absolutely innocent when the jury comes back with "Not Guilty" does that not mean you are still absolutely innocent in the eyes of the law? Yes, yes it does. Your issue is society and your standing there given the circumstances surrounding the case.

You keep trying to make exceptions to your claims, but in the case of a technicality, you don't get to go further. By your own claim if you don't go further in a legal case then you will continue to be ostracised, or at least can be. So where is this magical place where people go to prove they are absolutely innocent?

According to you: the law.

Meanwhile, it's time for you stop mentioning things you don't understand. If you don't know what equivocation means, don't use it? And since you are not using properly, whether you can quote the definition or not, you don't understand what it means. Much like your use of legal jargon that you clearly don't understand.

Equivocation: Feathers are light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore feathers cannot be dark.

This line of reasoning fits with what you've been trying to do here the entire time.

The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff in both realms, criminal and civil. HOWEVER, the underlying fact I was trying to convey is that it is easier for the defendant to win in criminal circumstances than in civil court because the burden of proof is is much lower.

Technically the burden of proof is HIGHER in criminal court, but is on the plaintiff ;)

Now of course "in general" it's true, that being said, and I don't know the stats on this, I wonder how many defendant victories in civil cases there as ratio compared to defendant victories in criminal cases.

Which is to say, even though it is, technically, easier for a defendant to win in criminal trials, most DAs don't GO to trial until they think they can win.

Defendants don't actually win as much as you think mostly because DAs take care to be able to win the trials they go ahead with.

Let's say I'm absolutely innocent of murder. I am accused and there is actually a bunch of evidence that makes me look very guilty. In the early stages, after the media frenzy, the judge discovers a problem with the acquisition of evidence and tosses the case.

Now where is it I go to prove I'm absolutely innocent?

You get tried again?

If there is no difference between sorta innocent and absolutely innocent when the jury comes back with "Not Guilty" does that not mean you are still absolutely innocent in the eyes of the law? Yes, yes it does. Your issue is society and your standing there given the circumstances surrounding the case.

The law has no qualification for innocence. There is only guilty or not guilty. So, no, no, it doesn't. Your claims are laughable.


According to you: the law.

You, sir, are lying. I've said the opposite. The only person who claimed the law could find you innocent is you. Lying doesn't lend credibility to you argument. The opposite really.


Equivocation: Feathers are light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore feathers cannot be dark.

This line of reasoning fits with what you've been trying to do here the entire time.

As I said I'm certain you can quote the definition (Plagairism is not allowed on this forum. You copied in whole. Cite your source. Or would you like me to do it for you?) but since you don't understand how to apply it, stop using it. I've never changed my meaning of guilt or innocence without saying whether I was talking about the law or socially.

You get tried again?

Nice attempt to avoid the question. You suggested I could prove I was absolutely innocent in order to avoid the social repercussions of being accused of a crime. Where would I do that?

The law has no qualification for innocence. There is only guilty or not guilty. So, no, no, it doesn't. Your claims are laughable.

One man is no more innocent than the other, so they are all absolutely innocent. Switch the word innocent with 'not guilty' if my use of the word innocent is so offensive to your sensibilities.

You, sir, are lying. I've said the opposite. The only person who claimed the law could find you innocent is you. Lying doesn't lend credibility to you argument. The opposite really.

See above.

As I said I'm certain you can quote the definition (Plagairism is not allowed on this forum. You copied in whole. Cite your source. Or would you like me to do it for you?) but since you don't understand how to apply it, stop using it. I've never changed my meaning of guilt or innocence without saying whether I was talking about the law or socially.

Go ahead.

Yes you have. Guilt has come to mean legal guilt and social guilt at the same time with you despite their being obvious differences.

Nice attempt to avoid the question. You suggested I could prove I was absolutely innocent in order to avoid the social repercussions of being accused of a crime. Where would I do that?

It was a mistrial. You get tried again. Since you say you're guilty then you're guilty and we're all happy you're in jail.

One man is no more innocent than the other, so they are all absolutely innocent. Switch the word innocent with 'not guilty' if my use of the word innocent is so offensive to your sensibilities.

It doesn't offend me. It's wrong. Since you keep repeating it. You're wrong.


See above.

Still wrong.



Go ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Seems like get caught lying isn't the only thing you get caught for. Claiming the work of others as your own is also your tactic. See that flying away. It's your credibility.

Yes you have. Guilt has come to mean legal guilt and social guilt at the same time with you despite their being obvious differences.

No, it hasn't. I've clearly delineated. I've pointed out clearly that being found not guilty will not convey social innocence. I've seperated them The ONLY one who equated them is you. Why you keep pointing out your own fallacy is beyond me.

It was a mistrial. You get tried again. Since you say you're guilty then you're guilty and we're all happy you're in jail.

Seriously, you just don't understand the first thing about what you're arguing? What do you think a mistrial is?

Do you know what double jeopardy is? Do you understand that if the judge throws out the case once it's started, that's it. It's done. No more criminal cases regarding you and that charge. Period.

There is no way for you to prove yourself "absolutely innocent".

It doesn't offend me. It's wrong. Since you keep repeating it. You're wrong.




Still wrong.

If you are not guilty then you are... innocent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Seems like get caught lying isn't the only thing you get caught for. Claiming the work of others as your own is also your tactic. See that flying away. It's your credibility.


Well since I never claimed the example was my own, and since wiki and a public resource anyone with a browser can access, it didn't occur to me that quoting the source was necessary so you would have to open a new browser window, search for the text, read it, and come back to say okay.


No, it hasn't. I've clearly delineated. I've pointed out clearly that being found not guilty will not convey social innocence. I've seperated them The ONLY one who equated them is you. Why you keep pointing out your own fallacy is beyond me.

No, you haven't. If by technicality you are innocent the media and everyone else will know. Which is why you wouldn't likely be treated as innocent. If, however, you are not guilty because you didn't do it, then the same applies only your ARE treated as innocent. Your supposition only works if everyone is constantly out to get the accused and if sure-fire innocent is synonymous with technical innocence.

Hence fallacy of equivocation.

Seriously, you just don't understand the first thing about what you're arguing? What do you think a mistrial is?

Do you know what double jeopardy is? Do you understand that if the judge throws out the case once it's started, that's it. It's done. No more criminal cases regarding you and that charge. Period.

There is no way for you to prove yourself "absolutely innocent".

Double jeopardy does not apply to mistrials. Hence you're wrong.

Double jeopardy does not apply to mistrials. Hence you're wrong.

Ha. This stuff is great. Um, can you provide proof, please? I wouldn't want you to claim later this is a misunderstanding.

If you are not guilty then you are... innocent!

No. There is no such thing in a criminal trial. The law only declares you cannot be found guilty. No more. No less. It does not convey innocence.


Well since I never claimed the example was my own, and since wiki and a public resource anyone with a browser can access, it didn't occur to me that quoting the source was necessary so you would have to open a new browser window, search for the text, read it, and come back to say okay.

If you post something written by someone else and don't source it, it's plagiarism. It's a lie. Source your arguments or be called out for being dishonest.






No, you haven't. If by technicality you are innocent the media and everyone else will know. Which is why you wouldn't likely be treated as innocent. If, however, you are not guilty because you didn't do it, then the same applies only your ARE treated as innocent. Your supposition only works if everyone is constantly out to get the accused and if sure-fire innocent is synonymous with technical innocence.

Hence fallacy of equivocation.

No, you don't get it. It doesn't have to always be equivalent. It only has to sometimes be equivalent. If I am found innocent by technicality, there is no way for me every to take the case further. Ever. That's it. It's done. So I'm sure-fire innocent and technically innocent at the same time. It doesn't have to always be true. It is most certainly sometimes true.

But thank you, by clearly stating that, you've made your misunderstanding clearly to anyone reading, since I've never claim everyone is constantly out to get the ccused or that they "sure-fire innocence" and "technical innocence" are synonymous. It's not even possible to infer wihtout misunderstanding the point.

Ha. This stuff is great. Um, can you provide proof, please? I wouldn't want you to claim later this is a misunderstanding.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8790670
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States

There are few times when a DJ may be invoked following a mistrial.

No. There is no such thing in a criminal trial. The law only declares you cannot be found guilty. No more. No less. It does not convey innocence.


It means you are legally blameless, innocent means you are blameless. The word not being in legal lexicon does not mean that they differ in meaning, it means you've found something to nitpick and it bores me.

If you post something written by someone else and don't source it, it's plagiarism. It's a lie. Source your arguments or be called out for being dishonest.


If it's nature is similar to what I failed to 'source' then I'm good.

No, you don't get it. It doesn't have to always be equivalent. It only has to sometimes be equivalent. If I am found innocent by technicality, there is no way for me every to take the case further. Ever. That's it. It's done. So I'm sure-fire innocent and technically innocent at the same time. It doesn't have to always be true. It is most certainly sometimes true.

So we muddle it further with ambiguity do we? If you're only technically innocent, that sorta implies you got off because of a mistake in the legal system. You're not sure-fire innocent as far as society is concerned, and the two terms are still not identical.

Ha. This stuff is great. Um, can you provide proof, please? I wouldn't want you to claim later this is a misunderstanding.

edit: correction because I'm getitng sloppy. Double jeopardy, in jury trials, occurs after the point when the jury is empaneled. In pretrial motions for exclusion of evidence which leads to dismissal prior to empanelment of the jury, double jeopardy doesn't apply.

Now, if the judge throws the case out prior to the jury gathering, there is no jeopardy. If the judge throws it out for prosecutor misconduct AFTER the jury has empaneled, then it is double jeopardy.

Not "the start of the trial" is not the same as "the empaneling of the jury"

It means you are legally blameless, innocent means you are blameless.

No, innocent means you did not, as a matter of fact, commit the act.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8790670
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States

There are few times when a DJ may be invoked following a mistrial.

Hilarious.

Retrial Following Mistrial. The Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial following a mistrial when, "taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for ... [declaring a mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated." 1458 The Court has declined to articulate a precise definition of "manifest necessity."1459 The circuits, however, have interpreted this standard to allow retrial if the mistrial is based on the trial judge's finding that the jury is deadlocked,1460 biased, or unduly influenced.1461 Courts have also found manifest necessity when the behavior of the defendant1462 or her counsel1463 triggered the mistrial.

So you supply a source, that actually says that there are only a few exceptions to when a mistrial doesn't prevent retrail and then claim the opposite. No surpise there.

Now, what part of these exceptions allow for retrial if there is an evidenciary problem as in my scenario?

And according to your own source double jeopardy does apply to mistrials with some exceptions. But, let me guess, it's just another of those "misunderstandings", yeah?

Actually...he's right on this one. Double jeopardy only attaches upon the completion of a trial and a verdict is rendered. It doesn't apply to a mistrial

Pardon? Are you claiming that if they find that there are evidenciary problems with the grounds for the case, that double jeopardy doesn't apply?

Hilarious.

So you supply a source, that actually says that there are only a few exceptions to when a mistrial doesn't prevent retrail and then claim the opposite. No surpise there.

There are few exceptions.

And according to your own source double jeopardy does apply to mistrials with some exceptions. But, let me guess, it's just another of those "misunderstandings", yeah?

I did say that in the same post I cited it in didn't I?

It means you are legally blameless, innocent means you are blameless. The word not being in legal lexicon does not mean that they differ in meaning, it means you've found something to nitpick and it bores me.



If it's nature is similar to what I failed to 'source' then I'm good.



So we muddle it further with ambiguity do we? If you're only technically innocent, that sorta implies you got off because of a mistake in the legal system. You're not sure-fire innocent as far as society is concerned, and the two terms are still not identical.

So where do I go to prove I'm sure-fire innocent if I've already been let off on a technicality?

No, innocent means you did not, as a matter of fact, commit the act.

Indeed that is also one of it's definitions.

There are few exceptions.



I did say that in the same post I cited it in didn't I?

If you read your own source, it says that it only doesn't apply if there is manifest necessity. That means that it only doesn't apply in exception. It's not a subtle difference.

Meanwhile, I so called that when you proven wrong AGAIN you would change your claim.

So where do I go to prove I'm sure-fire innocent if I've already been let off on a technicality?

If you're not sure-fire innocent, then what is the point of the question?

If you read your own source, it says that it only doesn't apply if there is manifest necessity. That means that it only doesn't apply in exception. It's not a subtle difference.

Meanwhile, I so called that when you proven wrong AGAIN you would change your claim.

Or maybe I clarified in my post that there are few exceptions? Holy cow forgive me for rectifying an error caused by a broad generalization.

If you're not sure-fire innocent, then what is the point of the question?

Dude, seriously, I'm speaking English. I an in an absolute sense innocent of the charges against. However, the evidence that is presented by the media makes me look sufficiently guilty. And the state tries me, but the judge throws the case out on a technicality. So the case only goes to your made-up judgment of "technically" not guilty.

But I want to be proven sure-fire innocent. Where do I go to prove that? The case is done and they stopped at the technicality. How do I get justice socially?

Or maybe I clarified in my post that there are few exceptions? Holy cow forgive me for rectifying an error caused by a broad generalization.

No. If it was once, or twice, or most times, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But EVERY argument you've made has shifted until you were agreeing with us. If you'd been saying in the beginning much of what you're saying now, there'd have been no argument. Instead you say stupidly incorrect things and then when you get called to the carpet you pretend like it REALLY meant something else.

These aren't typos. They aren't misunderstandings. You've been proven wrong repeatedly. You've been proven wrong because you don't know what you're talking about.

Indeed that is also one of it's definitions.

Oh, look, equivocation.

Pardon? Are you claiming that if they find that there are evidenciary problems with the grounds for the case, that double jeopardy doesn't apply?

insofar as an evidentiary problem is typically raised and argued during either motions to supress or motions in limine which would occur prior to empanelment, yes.

Dude, seriously, I'm speaking English. I an in an absolute sense innocent of the charges against. However, the evidence that is presented by the media makes me look sufficiently guilty. And the state tries me, but the judge throws the case out on a technicality. So the case only goes to your made-up judgment of "technically" not guilty.

But I want to be proven sure-fire innocent. Where do I go to prove that? The case is done and they stopped at the technicality. How do I get justice socially?

So let's get this straight:

You are in actuality, absolutely innocent.

The media was entirely one-sided in their covering of this story.

Are you or are you not a public figure?

You were found innocent because the case was through out on a technicality, and meets the criteria for falling under double-jeopardy.

Is this about right?

insofar as an evidentiary problem is typically raised and argued during either motions to supress or motions in limine which would occur prior to empanelment, yes.

Well, in my scenario, we're assuming that the trial has begun, including the empanelment.

Amusingly, though, it wouldn't be a mistrail if it was a pretrial motion. He just throws out terms he doesn't actually know.

Also, apparently, if you get off on a technicality you can just request another trial so you can prove you're 'really' innocent.

You were found innocent

Once again, nobody is ever found innocent.

No. If it was once, or twice, or most times, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But EVERY argument you've made has shifted until you were agreeing with us. If you'd been saying in the beginning much of what you're saying now, there'd have been no argument. Instead you say stupidly incorrect things and then when you get called to the carpet you pretend like it REALLY meant something else.

No, it hasn't. There was an issue with civil law but that was a miscommunication by me. Everything else is you equating words as equal in situations when they are clearly not. Otherwise you're dreaming and still not coming close to justifying your stance in this thread.

Oh, look, equivocation.

Better call the people who make dictionaries and tell them that they're fallacious.

So let's get this straight:

You are in actuality, absolutely innocent.

The media was entirely one-sided in their covering of this story.

I didn't say one-sided. I'm saying that the evidence they have makes you look guilty.


Are you or are you not a public figure?

You were found innocent because the case was through out on a technicality, and meets the criteria for falling under double-jeopardy.

Is this about right?

You are only a public figure in that murder trials can often be very public and in this case we're assuming so.

Better call the people who make dictionaries and tell them that they're fallacious.

This is why I say you don't understand the meaning of equivocation. The fact that there are multiple definitions is the reason for its existence. Pretending like you can just insert any meaning you like is where the fallacy applies and that has nothing to do with the dictionary. You said "that's one of the definitions" like you could just pick any definition you like.

Seriously, I really do wonder if you understand just how badly you've been handed your behind in this argument. Do you? Not just but by me, but in a side argument with Arthais as well. He pounded you into the dirt. You've not even been in the running at any point.

You are only a public figure in that murder trials can often be very public and in this case we're assuming so.

Heh, that's actually kind of funny. There are different standards for defamation by the press if the person they allegedly defaimed was a public figure, and it is, in fact, MUCH harder to win on a defamation claim when you are a public figure and the defendant is the media.

The argument of that the media, by defaiming you, made you into a public figure, and thus they can't be liable for your defamation is kind of amusing.

I didn't say one-sided. I'm saying that the evidence they have makes you look guilty.


So they're not providing the public with the evidence that makes you look otherwise.



You are only a public figure in that murder trials can often be very public and in this case we're assuming so.

Public figure insofar as you were well known before the case.

This is why I say you don't understand the meaning of equivocation. The fact that there are multiple definitions is the reason for its existence. Pretending like you can just insert any meaning you like is where the fallacy applies and that has nothing to do with the dictionary. You said "that's one of the definitions" like you could just pick any definition you like.

A meaning that inherently skews the debate to make an argument that rests upon that meaning that would not otherwise be so is when equivocation applies. Not when someone uses a synonym.

So they're not providing the public with the evidence that makes you look otherwise.

Not convincingly, no.



Public figure insofar as you were well known before the case.

What is unclear. Neo Art understood it. I was not a public figure before the case. Thus the "only".

Not convincingly, no.





What is unclear. Neo Art understood it. I was not a public figure before the case. Thus the "only".

So again.

You are in effect absolutely innocent.

The media is being on sided.

You are not a public figure.

You are declared not guilty based upon a technicality; the case was thrown out.

Is this correct?

A meaning that inherently skews the debate to make an argument that rests upon that meaning that would not otherwise be so is when equivocation applies. Not when someone uses a synonym.

Dude, seriously, you really should just stop talking. He pointed out the meaning of innocent. You said that's one meaning, as if you could apply others to the same usage, which has nothing to do with synonyms. Is there a term you AREN'T going to misapply?

So again.

You are in effect absolutely innocent.

The media is being on sided.

No. That they are presenting information that leads the viewer to one-side doesn't mean they are being one-sided. They could lack information. Or the information could just give one appearance to the layperson when the fact is much different. I'm sorry you don't see the difference but it's an important difference. One requires a media conspiracy. The other simply requires that they fail to create a view that is favorable to you or, in the case, to the actuality of the situation.


You are not a public figure.

You are declared not guilty based upon a technicality; the case was thrown out.

Is this correct?

Yep.

Dude, seriously, you really should just stop talking. He pointed out the meaning of innocent. You said that's one meaning, as if you could apply others to the same usage, which has nothing to do with synonyms. Is there a term you AREN'T going to misapply?

Because there are various meanings of the word innocent that are identical.

Go back to wiki:

Light means both not heavy and bright. Those do not mean the same thing.

Innocent means you are blameless, it also means you are naive. Since I am not using the later definition there is no equivocation.

No. That they are presenting information that leads the viewer to one-side doesn't mean they are being one-sided. They could lack information. Or the information could just give one appearance to the layperson when the fact is much different. I'm sorry you don't see the difference but it's an important difference. One requires a media conspiracy. The other simply requires that they fail to create a view that is favorable to you or, in the case, to the actuality of the situation.


...

So the media is being one sided either our of maliciousness or lack of information.


Yep.

And you want to prove to the world then, that you are absolutely innocent and not just innocent because of a technicality?

...

So the media is being one sided either our of maliciousness or lack of information.

No. I'll keep repeating it until you recognize the difference. The media is being fair. You are putting fault on the media, when you word it that way. They effect is that people think I'm guilty. Say it that way or don't say it at all. I'm never going to agree the media is being one-sided and I'm done arguiing about such a stupid claim.


Here is the basis of the coverage. A two-minute report that all my friends and neighbors see that shows the evidence so far, evidence that very much suggests I killed my wife.

When the case is thrown out on a technicality that report that I got off on a technicality.

The combination of those things make it look like I got away with murder.



And you want to prove to the world then, that you are absolutely innocent and not just innocent because of a technicality?

According to you I'm able to do so that I may leave behind the stigma. I'm asking how that happens.

No. I'll keep repeating it until you recognize the difference. The media is being fair. You are putting fault on the media, when you word it that way. They effect is that people think I'm guilty. Say it that way or don't say it at all. I'm never going to agree the media is being one-sided and I'm done arguiing about such a stupid claim.

Except it is the media's fault. Otherwise how would anyone know about you anyway? It's the media that effects the reputation you are so worried about.


Here is the basis of the coverage. A two-minute report that all my friends and neighbors see that shows the evidence so far, evidence that very much suggests I killed my wife.

When the case is thrown out on a technicality that report that I got off on a technicality.

The combination of those things make it look like I got away with murder.

Then it is still the fault of the media because otherwise your reputation wouldn't have been effected one way or the other.



According to you I'm able to do so that I may leave behind the stigma. I'm asking how that happens.

If you maintain that the media is a non-agent in the shift in your reputation then it doesn't matter either way.

Except it is the media's fault. Otherwise how would anyone know about you anyway? It's the media that effects the reputation you are so worried about.




Then it is still the fault of the media because otherwise your reputation wouldn't have been effected one way or the other.





If you maintain that the media is a non-agent in the shift in your reputation then it doesn't matter either way.

The media reports the news. My case was news that would achieve ratings. As such they reported it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now, are you done avoiding the question? Where is this magical fix my reputation place?

EDIT: Come on, man. Get on with it. It's blatantly obvious where you're going. That's why you're trying desperately to fault the media. I'm sure Neo Art has this one pegged to. It won't work. I'm not even presenting an uncommon scenario.

Because there are various meanings of the word innocent that are identical.

Go back to wiki:

Light means both not heavy and bright. Those do not mean the same thing.

Innocent means you are blameless, it also means you are naive. Since I am not using the later definition there is no equivocation.

There are not various meanings that are identical. They are different usages or they would not be different meanings. What is so difficult for you that you misuse EVERYTHING, even a dictionary? You intentionally insinuationed that blameless was not the only definition that could be applied to the usage. And you avoided the point by doing so. That's equivocation.

The media reports the news. My case was news that would achieve ratings. As such they reported it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now, are you done avoiding the question? Where is this magical fix my reputation place?

Then we change the legal system that allows you to finally clear your name, if such a mechanism doesn't already exist. What we don't do is assume all cases are analogous to the one presented by you because hey, they're not. It's shows the imperfections inherent to the system, something inherent to all systems. Does that mean you can't under normal circumstances repair your reputation after being found not guilty? No, of course not.

Also is this place in a small town or big city? The difference is important.

It's also important to realize that not being convicted, even if it was based upon a technicality, does far less damage to your reputation than the former. And not doing any footwork on your own to prove that your as innocent as you claim to the world as a whole (calling up the damned media) isn't the fault of the system either.

Now here's a good question I have for you: how is this analogous to TCAP and the humiliation these people have suffered?

There are not various meanings that are identical. They are different usages or they would not be different meanings. What is so difficult for you that you misuse EVERYTHING, even a dictionary? You intentionally insinuationed that blameless was not the only definition that could be applied to the usage. And you avoided the point by doing so. That's equivocation.

What do you think a synonym is? Are the makers of the thesaurus guilty of the equivocation fallacy? No, of course not.

Using innocent to mean both blameless and orange at the same time in the same argument is both fallacy of equivocation and absurd. However, using innocent to mean blameless and not guilty is not.

You see what is not there, and it's boring me.

Then we change the legal system that allows you to finally clear your name, if such a mechanism doesn't already exist. What we don't do is assume all cases are analogous to the one presented by you because hey, they're not. It's shows the imperfections inherent to the system, something inherent to all systems. Does that mean you can't under normal circumstances repair your reputation after being found not guilty? No, of course not.

Hilarious. First, no one said all cases. Second of all, this proves a number of arguments you claimed to be wrong. Thanks for playing. Your admission that you were wrong was worth my time.

It means there is no mechanism in place for protecting me from a media that can present me as guilty without it ever having been proven that I actually am.


Now here's a good question I have for you: how is this analogous to TCAP and the humiliation these people have suffered?

Because there is at least the possibility that we are led to believe is not what actually occurred. For at least one group, there will never be a criminal trial. There is no way they will ever get justice if they are in fact not guilty of what was presented by Dateline.

What do you think a synonym is? Are the makers of the thesaurus guilty of the equivocation fallacy? No, of course not.

Using innocent to mean both blameless and orange at the same time in the same argument is both fallacy of equivocation and absurd. However, using innocent to mean blameless and not guilty is not.

You see what is not there, and it's boring me.

Dude, stop talking. Synonym has nothing to do with the multiple meanings of innocent. Synonym refers to multiple WORDS with the same meaning. We were talking about ONE word. Innocent.

You don't get it. Blameless and not guilty are not he same thing. Meanwhile, innocent does not mean not guilty. It means either blameless or lawful in a sentence like that. And neither is conveyed by not guilty. And switching between meanings in the sentence for the sake of argument is equivocation. I know you don't understand. I'm sorry for that. But you also don't understand what a synonym is. Seriously, I can't explain it in a way that will make you understand. You've proven that much. So we'll just have to accept you're going to continue misapply these terms.

Mainly because you can't seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. When you figure that out, let me know.



Not always. In fact, a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss makes no mention of any rebuttal arguments what so ever. Again, you argument has been basically this:

"whatever the plaintiff says is assumed true, until the defendant proves it otherwise."

That is what you're trying to say, right? That's your argument? Answer me this then, how does a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss work? Just a brief explanation will do, explain to me how a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss works if all assertions by the plaintiff are assumed true.

Likewise, just do me a favor, and explain to me where in a 12(b)(6) motion by a defendant does that defendant attempt to rebut the claims? Because if a claim can be dismissed without rebuttal, based purely on the claims of the plaintiff, well, then I guess they're not assumed to be true, are they?

So tell me, how's a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings work?



Consider it addressed, how does a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings work if the plaintiff's assertions are assumed true?



Forgot about them? No. Know what they actually mean? Yes.




Yes, it is. Because you're wrong.



Fortunatly for me I'm capable of both sounding smart AND being right. Neither skill which you have mastered.



12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings. Explain it.

And of course if you want to back off your initial statement of "the defendant has to disprove the assumed true claims of the plaintiff" and to somehow make it into this very broad argument of "it's harder for a defendant to win a civil trial than a criminal one", may I respond with a "no shit" and point out that this has to do with different standards of proof, and not some amorphous burden shift, considering you have yet to explain what the burden is.


Stop it. You made me orgasm with justice.

Hilarious. First, no one said all cases. Second of all, this proves a number of arguments you claimed to be wrong. Thanks for playing. Your admission that you were wrong was worth my time.

Then if it's not in all cases how you do plan to make it applicable?

It means there is no mechanism in place for protecting me from a media that can present me as guilty without it ever having been proven that I actually am.


As you said earlier, it needs to be the case that the media conspired to make you look guilty. It needs to be the case that the media won't report that you've found evidence of your actual innocence (If it weren't you then who?). When are those ever the case?

Because there is at least the possibility that we are led to believe is not what actually occurred. For at least one group, there will never be a criminal trial. There is no way they will ever get justice if they are in fact not guilty of what was presented by Dateline.

They went to the house expecting to have sex with a minor. The humilitation is a part of being irresponsible and also a sick fuck. There's a key difference, namely that in order to get arrested for the crime, whether they were entrapped or not, they had to continually say "I'm going to do this" up till the encounter. It was not a snap decision.

Then if it's not in all cases how you do plan to make it applicable?

Some cases is enough.


As you said earlier, it needs to be the case that the media conspired to make you look guilty. It needs to be the case that the media won't report that you've found evidence of your actual innocence (If it weren't you then who?). When are those ever the case?

No, it doesn't. I didn't claim that. Only you did. They didn't conspire. That's the point. Meanwhile, the ONLY reason they would present evidence of my innocence after the hooplah has died down is if it gets them ratings. they are under no obligation to do so.


They went to the house expecting to have sex with a minor. The humilitation is a part of being irresponsible and also a sick fuck. There's a key difference, namely that in order to get arrested for the crime, whether they were entrapped or not, they had to continually say "I'm going to do this" up till the encounter. It was not a snap decision.


You don't know this. You are assuming this based on a show whose role it is to make this appear true. It's not proven. They may very well be guilty, but you cannot logically conclude they are DEFINITELY guilty in an absolute sense. You simply can't without ignoring that you didn't actual see the evidence.

You can't get to where you are without assuming people are guilty until proven innocent. Because if you start from the other side you HAVE to look at the potential problesm. Even your claim about cops, suggests that innocents NEVER get arrested. Fortunately, doesn't make such absurdly stupid assumptions.

Dude, stop talking. Synonym has nothing to do with the multiple meanings of innocent. Synonym refers to multiple WORDS with the same meaning. We were talking about ONE word. Innocent.

Blameless is a synonym of innocent. Their meanings are identical. You cannot get around this fact no matter how hard you beg and plead.

You don't get it. Blameless and not guilty are not he same thing. Meanwhile, innocent does not mean not guilty. It means either blameless or lawful in a sentence like that. And neither is conveyed by not guilty. And switching between meanings in the sentence for the sake of argument is equivocation. I know you don't understand. I'm sorry for that. But you also don't understand what a synonym is. Seriously, I can't explain it in a way that will make you understand. You've proven that much. So we'll just have to accept you're going to continue misapply these terms.

Yes, they do. Only if we are confined in the legal realm of the court room does what you say in this area even matter. No one else would care about word choice when they in effect, mean the same thing. You, on the otherwise can't. stop. bitching. about. what. is. irrelevant.

Equivocation:

Light = bright and not heavy.

Innocent = Blameless and naive.

Heavy = emotionally intense and not-light.

That is equivocation. What you're bitching about word variation.

Some cases is enough.

No, it's not. Only if some cases equates to "has an appreciable impact upon the system as a hole outside acceptable tolerances." You haven't proven that. Denied.


No, it doesn't. I didn't claim that. Only you did. They didn't conspire. That's the point.


The media has to act in a way that is antagonistic to your aims at restoring your reputation. If you don't substantiate it, then Occam's razor says the cabal of j00s wanting to get innocent doo gooders is false.

You don't know this. You are assuming this based on a show whose role it is to make this appear true. It's not proven. They may very well be guilty, but you cannot logically conclude they are DEFINITELY guilty in an absolute sense. You simply can't without ignoring that you didn't actual see the evidence.

They're guilty of going to the house to have sex with a minor. The only way they are not guilty of that is if PJ and TCAP forged evidence. If that is the case then all these men will be freed from jail, sue for defamation, and none of this is the fault of the concept and goes outside the realm of this debate. Course, you have to prove that it is remotely likely that PJ and TCAP forged evidence.

Blameless is a synonym of innocent. Their meanings are identical. You cannot get around this fact no matter how hard you beg and plead.

We are talking about the usage of innocent. Only innocent. That's all. Blameless is one of the definitions of innocent. And that was how it was used, as a definition, not a synonym. The difference is important, but it's yet another you don't recognize.


Yes, they do. Only if we are confined in the legal realm of the court room does what you say in this area even matter. No one else would care about word choice when they in effect, mean the same thing. You, on the otherwise can't. stop. bitching. about. what. is. irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. There is no meaning of innocent that refers to the legal finding "not guilty". That is by design. It's by design because it's a wholly important distinction. Simply because you don't understand it doesn't make it unimportant. It just makes it like every other principle you've been attempting to apply, like synonym, like, various logical fallacies, like your understanding of the law, like the ridiculous arguments that have represented this thread throughout the night. The entire thing has been about explaining very basic concepts to you.


Equivocation:

Light = bright and not heavy.

Innocent = Blameless and naive.

Heavy = emotionally intense and not-light.

That is equivocation. What you're bitching about word variation.

Innocent = Blameless and lawful.

See how that works. You said clearly that blameless is only one of the definitions that could apply, you committed the fallacy of equivocation by implying that the meaning might be that or might be another. It's not complicated. In fact, it's quite simple and it has nothing to do with synonyms.