Congress & the Courts -  Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment (946 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: Katana (ferdaig)Oct-6 3:28 AM 
To: Black_Beard  (51 of 86) 
 118146.51 in reply to 118146.46 

Black_Beard said...

Enforcing the law means having irrefutable evidence.

NO it doesn't.  It means having the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Irrefutable is an impossible standard.  

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-7 1:07 AM 
To: Katana (ferdaig)  (52 of 86) 
 118146.52 in reply to 118146.51 

"Irrefutable is an impossible standard."

No it is not. That is what most convictions for crimes is built on. Evidence that cannot be refuted in a reasonable way. 

Shoot someone while someone else watches and then relates the scenario in court, and your lawyer cannot make the witnessed event seem doubtful and you basically have irrefutable evidence.

 

 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-7 4:12 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (53 of 86) 
 118146.53 in reply to 118146.52 

No it is not. That is what most convictions for crimes is built on. Evidence that cannot be refuted in a reasonable way. --

Black Beard- ever hear the term 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt?"

That is the standard that all judges tell their juries when making a judgement.

In no way is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" equal to Irrefutable. Are you saying the President is above the law? Most certaintly, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has committed multiple crimes. On the other hand, there is a lot of doubt about the lies put forward by Trump Allies to destroy their enemies, the democrats.

You stand accused of using double standards- one for those you agree with politically, and one much stricter and more impossible for Trump Administration crimes. Its as if we have a recording of Trump killing his mother in cold blood, and you ask-

Can you prove that this woman is not a clone of his mother, made by aliens to destroy him, and that he wasn't killing an evil alien woman?

 

 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-7 6:01 PM 
To: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member Icon  (54 of 86) 
 118146.54 in reply to 118146.53 

I do not believe you understand the meaning of "a reasonable doubt".

What would a juror use to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? 

The defendant looks guilty? He dressed funny today. The defendant's lawyer's hair is messy. It's raining outside. All the news papers say he is guilty.

Really, what does a juror use to insure that the guilty verdict they have decided upon is reasonable? 

Irrefutable means one cannot prove the opposite of what has been asserted.

 

 

 
From: David (DAVEBUTLER) DelphiPlus Member IconOct-7 6:15 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (55 of 86) 
 118146.55 in reply to 118146.54 

"Irrefutable" is not the criminal standard of proof. 

Can't wait 'til you find out that the standard of proof in civil cases, which can give rise to billion-dollar judgments, is 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning anything more than 50% likely.

 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-7 6:30 PM 
To: David (DAVEBUTLER) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (56 of 86) 
 118146.56 in reply to 118146.55 

I am familiar with the difference between "Preponderance of the Evidence" and "reasonable doubt".

Do you know what they have in common? Those who make such decisions, Is evidence as the base for making their decision.

Isn't that strange that in courts of law one must utilize evidence to win a case. 

For civil cases one must simply convince the jury that the crime was most likely committed by the defendant.

In a criminal case the jury must be sure the evidence is of sufficient unarguable truth that there is no doubt as to its validity. 

Both rely upon the weighing of the evidence.

 

 

 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-7 6:31 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (57 of 86) 
 118146.57 in reply to 118146.54 

Hmm- ask a lawyer that. Ask a prosecutor that. They've been putting people to jail for crimes based on that standard for two centuries. It can be as simple as having a lot of evidence that clearly isn't faked, and a provable crime. Trump meets those standards.

 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-7 6:33 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (58 of 86) 
 118146.58 in reply to 118146.54 

Irrefutable means one cannot prove the opposite of what has been asserted.--

no- I'm afraid it doesn't mean that. It means that one cannot contest the facts put forward.  Sometimes there situations where one can prove one of two opposite positions.

 

 
From: David (DAVEBUTLER) DelphiPlus Member IconOct-7 7:17 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (59 of 86) 
 118146.59 in reply to 118146.56 

Read your post again, then tell us what point you were trying to make.

 

 
From: Katana (ferdaig)Oct-8 3:32 AM 
To: Black_Beard  (60 of 86) 
 118146.60 in reply to 118146.52 

Katana said...

"Irrefutable is an impossible standard."

Black_Beard said...No it is not. That is what most convictions for crimes is built on.

Incorrect.  The standard, as I mentioned, is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Irrefutable means impossible to disprove.  

Black_Beard said...

Shoot someone while someone else watches and then relates the scenario in court, and your lawyer cannot make the witnessed event seem doubtful and you basically have irrefutable evidence.

:-)  Allow me to introduce you to my twin brother.  Which one of us fired that shot?  

 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-86
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.