NationStates Jolt Archive

edit:
never mind. we worked it out.. kinda.

Edit II: sorry, but looks like it wasn't worked out. resubmitting OH and MODS ONLY PLEASE.

I don't know if you can see the orignal post. if not...

basically in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556666). Jocabia and I got into a rather nasty fight.

Jocabia then created this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556872).
with the following op.

Presumption of Innocence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know we're not all lawyers, but I see this come up a lot.

I've seen several posters suggest that presumption of innocence applies in a civil trial.

I've seen others claim that it applies to everyone involved in a trial, rather than to the accused.

I've seen it described that it applies to assuming that people involved didn't make any mistakes.

Lawyer or not, it seems to be me sort of basic to our understanding of our justice system in the US. We are all potential jurors and I fear the day I'm in a jury box with some of these people.

Anyone want to explain their understanding of the presumption of innocence. Also, I'm opening this up to anything else you might want to understand about the justice system. Broad topic.


I reposted a question never answered in the original thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700484&postcount=21)

I have several questions.

1) where does Presumption of innocence support this idea?

Quote:
You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that".

2) where does it say that Presumption of innocence relates to citizens talking about a case (tho they have NO TIES to the case itself) on the internet?

3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?

and his reply was here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700526&postcount=26)

This is hijack. Please don't reply to this.

and I reply in post 42 with this.
is it or is it not a question of Presumption of Innocence?

Does those questions touch upon when presumption of innocence can and has to be applied?

does it not ask who are required to act within the presumption of innocence?

how is that hijacking a thread about how Presumption of innocence works?
his reply in 46 states that I not mention the case, (I didn't) not to discuss it in this thread (I haven't)
then ends his post with this
See, in your post, you were talking about how he should have collected evidence to show he was innocent by dialing 911. I pointed out he doesn't need to, because he has the presumption of innocence.
a direct engagement to do that which he asked me not to do. discuss the case as well as hijack the thread. and he himself just showed that he's drawing one thread into the other.

then back in the original thread (because someone didn't want the new PoI thread hijacked) I posted this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700657&postcount=292

can this be considered greifing?
Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

I'm sorry mods. This must be annoying to wade through.

Unfortunately, you need a little information.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556666&page=20

Here is the thread where it started. I brought up the presumption of innocence in discussion of a trial. Eventually we were bickering about whether or not we were even discussing a trial, so I backed out.

I just don't want to contaminate the other thread.

Here was his first attempt -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700526&postcount=26

He reposted it again after NA refused to answer.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700638&postcount=54

Then to further cross the threads he posted this -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700657&postcount=292

Honestly, this is seriously petty and I'd prefer it just be dropped. And, I recognize I'm complicit, I assure you. That's why I backed out. I don't want another thread to come down to whether or not he meant "testify" in terms of a trial or in the lay form.

I saw that it was getting silly and tried to just extract a more interesting discussion out of it that NA and I were having offline.

I don't think it's unreasonable that the pettiness not spread.

tell ya what Jocabia. let's call a truce and agree that from now on, we keep what happens in a thread in THAT thread and allow the othe person the benefit of the doubt when they post something similar in another thread.

Ok?

MODS: can I request that if Jocabia agrees, we can drop it. My only complaint is that it was assumed that my actions in one thread was read to be tied directly to another thread.
If Jocabia and I agree to 'keeping it in the thread', then I'll be satisfied.

I'm not engaging with you, friend. I realize that your purpose was to drag me back in. I'm not taking the bait. What you can do is discuss it with someone else? When a conversation gets to the point where it comes down to this...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700614&postcount=289

... then I'm done. We're done here. We're done there. And please do not drag into another thread.

I would like to add in green.
I'm sorry mods. This must be annoying to wade through.

Unfortunately, you need a little information.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556666&page=20

Here is the thread where it started. I brought up the presumption of innocence in discussion of a trial. Eventually we were bickering about whether or not we were even discussing a trial, so I backed out.

I just don't want to contaminate the other thread.

Here was his first attempt -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700526&postcount=26

He reposted it again after NA refused to answer.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700638&postcount=54
NA said I knew the answer, so I posted what I knew and asked for his confimation.

Then to further cross the threads he posted this -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700657&postcount=292

Because someone requested I not hijack the original thread. now he's using my complying with his request as evidence of ME crossing threads?

Honestly, this is seriously petty and I'd prefer it just be dropped. And, I recognize I'm complicit, I assure you. That's why I backed out. I don't want another thread to come down to whether or not he meant "testify" in terms of a trial or in the lay form.

I saw that it was getting silly and tried to just extract a more interesting discussion out of it that NA and I were having offline.

I don't think it's unreasonable that the pettiness not spread.

Oh, put a sock in it, you two.

I have not read right through every single post of the whole kerfuffle, but I can see from a brief skim is that it is rather silly.

As far as I can see, JuNii wants Jocabia to answer a question. Jocabia has said he will not answer that question. That's where it should stop.

You both have enough experience on these forums and enough general good sense to know that internet disputes that seemed to be vital one day can look rather embarrassing the next.

It does not seem to me that there has been enough demonstration of malicious intent to say that griefing has occurred -- by either of you.

I have seen both of you, on occasion, say that your apparently angry posts are not seriously intended.

Okay, prove it. Do not make any further comments, in any of the threads in which you were in dispute, on each other's motives or arguments. Do not make any further threads on the matter in dispute. When I reopen this thread, do not make any further comment on anything except my ruling.

Which, for clarity, is: DROP IT, JuNii. DROP IT, Jocabia.

It's enforced bonding. "Kill or cure" theory.

You may not have noticed, and I can understand that because the original post has been changed, but the complainant requested Mods Only.