CDZ How much evidence is needed to presume guilt?

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

Who told you your feelings and emotions were evidence? I dont need evidence to tell you if someones claim has merit or not.

Someone's claims can be a total fabrication. The fact that your feelings and emotions lead you to believe them to have merit does not make them true. That can only be determined by evidence. Logic is your friend, but you seldom embrace it.

It could be a fabrication but that doesnt change if it has merit or not. For example someone could claim that their sprinkler system sprayed water on their car. It may be a total fabrication but the claim definitely has merit. Please show me where you need evidence to have merit. You only need evidence to prove something has no merit.

Merit would mean it has value. If it is a lie, there is no value. I'd like to say you're smarter than this, but I know that isn't true.

You cant know if something is a lie until you give it the merit needed to take time to investigate it. Dont get upset because you were taught not to be a free thinker.

For example. If you told me you were important I wouldnt give your claim any merit because to me your thinking process shows you are normally told what to think instead of figuring it out for yourself.

 

[2aguy]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

No....it is a founding concept that people are innocent until proven guilty.....in all aspects of our society....because God help you if that ever changes......

 

[Asclepias]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

No....it is a founding concept that people are innocent until proven guilty.....in all aspects of our society....because God help you if that ever changes......

No. Its only a founding concept when they are charged with a crime. Thats why you nor I would hire someone to cut our grass if someone warned us the person had broken into several homes or accused them of being a child molester. You simply wouldnt take the chance.

 

[Mac1958]

Americans can't even agree on facts at this point, so there's no way we can agree on "guilt" if there are political ramifications.

The "other" side is guilty, "my" side is innocent. We've deteriorated to that as our initial impulse, our foundation.

Those whose agenda is to divide are winning, because too many of us are falling for it.
.

 

[Asclepias]

Americans can't even agree on facts at this point, so there's no way we can agree on "guilt" if there are political ramifications.

The "other" side is guilty, "my" side is innocent. We've deteriorated to that as our initial impulse, our foundation.

Those whose agenda is to divide are winning, because too many of us are falling for it.
.

I dont see it as guilt or innocence. I see it as a question of logic. This nomination is not trail case. Therefore presumption of guilt or innocence is not the question. The question for a nominee is do I trust him or her to do the job. Its no different than a job interview.

 

[task0778]

Americans can't even agree on facts at this point, so there's no way we can agree on "guilt" if there are political ramifications.

The "other" side is guilty, "my" side is innocent. We've deteriorated to that as our initial impulse, our foundation.

Those whose agenda is to divide are winning, because too many of us are falling for it.
.

I dont see it as guilt or innocence. I see it as a question of logic. This nomination is not trail case. Therefore presumption of guilt or innocence is not the question. The question for a nominee is do I trust him or her to do the job. Its no different than a job interview.

Yes, and the question is how are you going to decide whether you trust the person or not? Gut feeling? What is the basis for your trust? If there are no facts and no evidence to believe the person has done anything wrong beyond an accusation, what then? Do you say well I don't like his looks or his demeanor? Or I don't like his politics?

Just a job interview he says. Ok, say you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend is up for a promotion wherever he works. After his interview for the job is over a woman who wants to destroy your chances for the job comes forward and says you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend tried to rape her 35 years ago. She's got no witnesses to corroborate her story, no police report, and she didn't anybody anything for 30 effing years. But your company denies you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend the promotion anyway. Tell me, are you cool with that? Was justice done?

Do you believe the justice is confined only to a courtroom? What if somebody at your job goes tot he boss and says you grabbed her ass. You know you didn't but you get fired anyway. How do you feel about that? Or maybe your kid gets kicked out of school for something he/she didn't do, nobody saw nothin' but your kid is expelled anyway. no prob?

Just a job interview. Bull effing shit, the prevailing attitude in this country is that we do not unreasonably convict somebody of anything, in or out of a court of law. The accuser has to show some cause for us to believe that a wrong was done and by whom, don't you think? And that sir, is called the presumption of innocence.

 

[Asclepias]

Americans can't even agree on facts at this point, so there's no way we can agree on "guilt" if there are political ramifications.

The "other" side is guilty, "my" side is innocent. We've deteriorated to that as our initial impulse, our foundation.

Those whose agenda is to divide are winning, because too many of us are falling for it.
.

I dont see it as guilt or innocence. I see it as a question of logic. This nomination is not trail case. Therefore presumption of guilt or innocence is not the question. The question for a nominee is do I trust him or her to do the job. Its no different than a job interview.

Yes, and the question is how are you going to decide whether you trust the person or not? Gut feeling? What is the basis for your trust? If there are no facts and no evidence to believe the person has done anything wrong beyond an accusation, what then? Do you say well I don't like his looks or his demeanor? Or I don't like his politics?

Just a job interview he says. Ok, say you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend is up for a promotion wherever he works. After his interview for the job is over a woman who wants to destroy your chances for the job comes forward and says you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend tried to rape her 35 years ago. She's got no witnesses to corroborate her story, no police report, and she didn't anybody anything for 30 effing years. But your company denies you or your son, brother, father, grandfather, friend the promotion anyway. Tell me, are you cool with that? Was justice done?

Do you believe the justice is confined only to a courtroom? What if somebody at your job goes tot he boss and says you grabbed her ass. You know you didn't but you get fired anyway. How do you feel about that? Or maybe your kid gets kicked out of school for something he/she didn't do, nobody saw nothin' but your kid is expelled anyway. no prob?

Just a job interview. Bull effing shit, the prevailing attitude in this country is that we do not unreasonably convict somebody of anything, in or out of a court of law. The accuser has to show some cause for us to believe that a wrong was done and by whom, don't you think? And that sir, is called the presumption of innocence.

Typically trust does depend on "gut feeling" which is not as mystical as people try to make it out to be. Your gut feeling is derived from your unconscious observations about a person. The human race has existed for far longer than any of our languages. During that time we were experts at ascertaining the trustworthiness of a person by observing their body language. This was so important it became a survival skill. If my gut feeling tells me you are lying or uncomfortable about a topic then I am going to assume you have something to hide.

In your example you asked if I was cool with being denied because a woman lied on me. No I wouldnt be but nothing is promised to me. What I would do is demand her accusations be investigated fully by the best investigative organization money could buy. I wouldnt dodge any questions on if I wanted them to investigate. I wouldnt flip out and claim it was a set up by republicans. I wouldnt lie about my past for no reason. I would want my name cleared. How do I know all this? Because I was accused or raping a woman in my past.

 

[MarathonMike]

There are people who are excellent liars. And there are people who are so high strung or nervous under questioning, they appear guilty when they are innocent. That is why we have an evidence-based judgement process. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

 

[task0778]

See, here's the problem: each of us carries our unique set of principles, values, beliefs, and biases. So when we look at an allegation made against somebody, our sense of justice and fairness is skewed because we are all of us imperfect human beings. Many of us rely on our gut feelings about somebody, but gut feelings can be wrong sometimes. Anybody want to step up and say they've never been tricked or fooled, misled by or mistaken about somebody? And that is why we should require some evidence to back up the accusation, some reliable or verified information that lends credence to the charges made. To do otherwise reduces us to mob rule, which is not how any sane person should want to make any important decisions. It's just not right or fair or just to start out believing somebody is guilty of something just because somebody else says so.

 

[Asclepias]

See, here's the problem: each of us carries our unique set of principles, values, beliefs, and biases. So when we look at an allegation made against somebody, our sense of justice and fairness is skewed because we are all of us imperfect human beings. Many of us rely on our gut feelings about somebody, but gut feelings can be wrong sometimes. Anybody want to step up and say they've never been tricked or fooled, misled by or mistaken about somebody? And that is why we should require some evidence to back up the accusation, some reliable or verified information that lends credence to the charges made. To do otherwise reduces us to mob rule, which is not how any sane person should want to make any important decisions. It's just not right or fair or just to start out believing somebody is guilty of something just because somebody else says so.

I can honestly say that every single person that supposedly tricked or fooled me gave off signals I ignored. It was my fault for not trusting my gut.

Again this isnt a trial. This is a job interview. If you make me feel like you are a child molester or someone brings it to my attention that you are one I dont need any proof or evidence to make the decision not to hire you to watch my child.

 

[Leo123]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Accusations don't have merit until proven with actual evidence which Ford's accusations lacked.

 

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Accusations don't have merit until proven with actual evidence which Ford's accusations lacked.

I disagree. Thats like saying if I accuse you of assaulting me then it has no merit because no third party witnessed it.

 

[Leo123]

I disagree. Thats like saying if I accuse you of assaulting me then it has no merit because no third party witnessed it.

Sorry, no evidence, no crime. That's the way our justice system works. BTW this is the CDZ please refrain from personal insults like you saying I would assault you.

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. Thats like saying if I accuse you of assaulting me then it has no merit because no third party witnessed it.

Sorry, no evidence, no crime. That's the way our justice system works. BTW this is the CDZ please refrain from personal insults like you saying I would assault you.

Nope. If it worked like that then people wouldnt be arrested because they fit the description.

 

[Leo123]

Nope. If it worked like that then people wouldnt be arrested because they fit the description.

If someone is arrested there has to be probable cause and that probable cause has to be PROVEN in order for someone to be charged with an actual crime. You keep moving the goal posts. Why don't you post the actual evidence that proves Kavenaugh actually committed a crime?

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. If it worked like that then people wouldnt be arrested because they fit the description.

If someone is arrested there has to be probable cause and that probable cause has to be PROVEN in order for someone to be charged with an actual crime. You keep moving the goal posts. Why don't you post the actual evidence that proves Kavenaugh actually committed a crime?

Nope. There are no goal posts involved. Your claim was that merit needed evidence. Thats demonstrably false. If you can get arrested just because you fit the description where is the evidence? There are people to this day in prison that are innocent even though there is zero evidence of them doing the crime.

 

[Leo123]

Nope. If it worked like that then people wouldnt be arrested because they fit the description.

If someone is arrested there has to be probable cause and that probable cause has to be PROVEN in order for someone to be charged with an actual crime. You keep moving the goal posts. Why don't you post the actual evidence that proves Kavenaugh actually committed a crime?

Nope. There are no goal posts involved. Your claim was that merit needed evidence. Thats demonstrably false. If you can get arrested just because you fit the description where is the evidence?

I said probable cause. You were talking about profiling. If one fits the description of a perp, they will be stopped and questioned. You have a problem with that? I don't. In fact I have been stopped because I looked like a perp, didn't bother me one bit, I answered questions and they scratched me off their list making it easier for them to find the real perp. Look, I don't hate law enforcement. I also have a problem with the OP's term 'presume guilt' it is far to vague.

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. If it worked like that then people wouldnt be arrested because they fit the description.

If someone is arrested there has to be probable cause and that probable cause has to be PROVEN in order for someone to be charged with an actual crime. You keep moving the goal posts. Why don't you post the actual evidence that proves Kavenaugh actually committed a crime?

Nope. There are no goal posts involved. Your claim was that merit needed evidence. Thats demonstrably false. If you can get arrested just because you fit the description where is the evidence?

I said probable cause. You were talking about profiling. If one fits the description of a perp, they will be stopped and questioned. You have a problem with that? I don't. In fact I have been stopped because I looked like a perp, didn't bother me one bit, I answered questions and they scratched me off their list making it easier for them to find the real perp. Look, I don't hate law enforcement. I also have a problem with the OP's term 'presume guilt' it is far to vague.

I know what you said. Probable cause and profiling are based on giving merit to some data. That data doesnt have to be any kind of evidence. It can be a gut feeling which is why people get arrested for fitting the description. This isnt about hating law enforcement. This is about reality. People are in prison right now even though there was zero evidence they committed a crime.

 

[Leo123]

I know what you said. Probable cause and profiling are based on giving merit to some data. That data doesnt have to be any kind of evidence. It can be a gut feeling which is why people get arrested for fitting the description. This isnt about hating law enforcement. This is about reality. People are in prison right now even though there was zero evidence they committed a crime.

And those who told lies to put innocents in jail should themselves be sent to jail. I hope Ms. Ford gets investigated for false reporting and trying to smear a good man.

 

[Asclepias]

I know what you said. Probable cause and profiling are based on giving merit to some data. That data doesnt have to be any kind of evidence. It can be a gut feeling which is why people get arrested for fitting the description. This isnt about hating law enforcement. This is about reality. People are in prison right now even though there was zero evidence they committed a crime.

And those who told lies to put innocents in jail should themselves be sent to jail. I hope Ms. Ford gets investigated for false reporting and trying to smear a good man.

That deflection is besides the point. You claimed merit needs evidence. If thats true why are people in prison right now even though there is zero evidence they committed a crime?