Perjury regarding sex -- it really IS a crime!

[maineman]

OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in a court of law, thus, not held legally responsible....BUT by virture of the FACT that he committed the act of murdering 2 people is GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, HE IS A MURDERER...and no jury finding will change those facts of life....



um... so, if the jury decided that he did not kill 2 people then... who are you to suggest that he did?

the jury did not decide that he did not kill two people. The jury decided that the state had not presented a case that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had killed two people. Based upon THAT decision, they rendered the verdict of "not guilty". Ergo, OJ is, by definition, NOT GUILTY of the crime of murder. Not guilty really does mean not guilty. that's a fact.

 

[maineman]

BOTH statements are factually WRONG, INCORRECT, and INACCURATE....

OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in a court of law, thus, not held legally responsible....BUT by virture of the FACT that he committed the act of murdering 2 people is GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, HE IS A MURDERER...and no jury finding will change those facts of life....

YOU, mm are the nutjob in this, insisting the word 'guilty' has only one meaning and that meaning is in the legal sense....that is bonehead wrong....

you are guilty of being an asshole and that has nothing to do with juries or courts, get it....the fact that you're as asshole is whats is relevant...

Jack looks guilty....
Is there a jury or a court or a law involved with this statement....???
No, of course not, and the statement is still a valid one.....

I never said that guilty has only one definition. However, as with most words, you really can only apply one at a time. I have stated over and over again, the definition of the word "guilty" that I am using in these instances is "adjudged to have committed a crime".

Take, for instance, the word "cleave". It has several definitions, but two of them are exactly opposite from one another. So, were I to use the word "cleave" in a sentence and be using it to convey the meaning of one of the two opposing definitions, you could say that I am a liar because you were using the other of the two opposing definitions.

I understand that you feel that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury. I agree with you that he most definitely lied under oath. He has never been adjudged to have committed the crime of perjury, however, so, in that sense of the word, he is clearly not guilty of the crime of perjury. That's a fact.

 

[Shogun]

um.. what ELSE would a not guilty verdict have meant?

 

[maineman]

um.. what ELSE would a not guilty verdict have meant?

according to RGS, it has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.

 

[manifold]

according to RGS, it has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.

That's because RGS is a Randian Objectivist, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Shogun]

I'll admit.. I think OJ is as guilty as the day is long...


but, we are a nation of laws and he had his day in court and he was found not guilty.

damn.. is this 1995 all over again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the jury did not decide that he did not kill two people. The jury decided that the state had not presented a case that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had killed two people. Based upon THAT decision, they rendered the verdict of "not guilty". Ergo, OJ is, by definition, NOT GUILTY of the crime of murder. Not guilty really does mean not guilty. that's a fact.

I have to agree with the Jury and legal guilt. In O.J.'s case that Jury had to find not guilty because the State so bungled the case that there was , in the Jury's mind, "reasonable doubt".

Personally I am not sure he did it. But having watched the Trial it really was a case of the State so screwing the evidence and evidence trail that that Jury with those "facts" had little choice.

Now as to his actual guilty only he knows if he did it or not.

 

[maineman]

I have to agree with the Jury and legal guilt. In O.J.'s case that Jury had to find not guilty because the State so bungled the case that there was , in the Jury's mind, "reasonable doubt".

Personally I am not sure he did it. But having watched the Trial it really was a case of the State so screwing the evidence and evidence trail that that Jury with those "facts" had little choice.

Now as to his actual guilty only he knows if he did it or not.

OJ is not guilty of murder. OJ was not adjudged to have committed the CRIME of murder. Same can be said about Clinton and the CRIME of perjury.
That is all I have ever said: Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

and...if OJ didn't do it, he is not the only one that knows THAT!

 

[Alpha1]

I'll admit.. I think OJ is as guilty as the day is long...


but, we are a nation of laws and he had his day in court and he was found not guilty.

damn.. is this 1995 all over again?

Good...lets explore this...one thing at a time

YOU think OJ is guilty as the day is long? FIRST, GUILTY OF WHAT?