| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 09:58:51 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE8B7A.10524323072003@blade.randori.com...
The rule is not that EVERYONE must presume the accused innocent, but
that the jury must do so ...
The jury are the only ones charged with reaching a verdict, dumb *****. The
fact remains that the only reasonable presumption is that "Guilt exists"
always caries a reasonable default presumption of false, since the burden of
proof can never be shifted to the denial, the negation in logic. Got it now,
knucklehead?
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
01 Aug 2003 07:27:04 PM |
|
|
In article <LevWa.28461$Oz4.8987@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE8B7A.10524323072003@blade.randori.com...
The rule is not that EVERYONE must presume the accused innocent, but
that the jury must do so ...
The jury are the only ones charged with reaching a verdict, dumb *****. The
fact remains that the only reasonable presumption is that "Guilt exists"
always caries a reasonable default presumption of false, since the burden of
proof can never be shifted to the denial, the negation in logic. Got it now,
knucklehead?
Before a jury is even impaneled, the prosecuter gets a hold of it.
If it is his/her opinion that the case cannot be successfully
prosecuted, it never gets to a jury, so the prosecutor must have a
presumtion of something like provable "guilt" before the case gets
to a jury.
Learn some law and some logic before pretending to knowedge you do
not have.
You misused the word "conflation" irresponsibly in another context.
Here you actually do conflate with what you allege to be principles
of law with what you allege to be principles of logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
