|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 7, 2024 17:17:31 GMT -5
If they caused physical harm to another, then yes that would change my perception as to whether prison would be justified for a first offense. Maybe next time, you won't jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims without knowing all the facts. That isn't very objective of you. “If” is the operative word. The nurse sprained her ankle. The more serious allegations of violence was the old woman falling on top of the manager, which the judge found “purposeful.” So a 75 year old woman caused a nurse to sprain her ankle and fell on top of another employee. That’s “meh.” Not justifiable but not a horribly violent event either.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 7, 2024 17:23:53 GMT -5
If they caused physical harm to another, then yes that would change my perception as to whether prison would be justified for a first offense. Maybe next time, you won't jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims without knowing all the facts. That isn't very objective of you. BTW, that statement is very telling that you’re trying very hard to find something to say “gotcha” on with me.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 7, 2024 18:10:19 GMT -5
Maybe next time, you won't jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated claims without knowing all the facts. That isn't very objective of you. BTW, that statement is very telling that you’re trying very hard to find something to say “gotcha” on with me. I don't think you are being very objective about these trials. Here is the case text. Sounds like they fought their way in. Also she had done something similar before. casetext.com/case/united-states-v-harlow-10As far as the Texas doctor violating HIPAA. If he revealed patient information to a reporter, he should be charged. You think it is o.k. to share patient medical information? If he didn't, he will get his day in court to prove it. The DOJ must have some evidence to believe he did
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 7, 2024 19:00:19 GMT -5
Nobody has to prove they didn’t do something that they were charged with.
Thats not how the judicial system works.
Or at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has the only burden of proof, according to the law.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 7, 2024 19:12:59 GMT -5
Nobody has to prove they didn’t do something that they were charged with. Thats not how the judicial system works. Or at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has the only burden of proof, according to the law. When the prosecutor feels that have enough evidence to prosecute you, you have your day in court to prove them wrong if you believe you are innocent. You can call it what you want, but every defendant who goes to trial is trying to prove he is not guilty while the prosecution proves he is guilty of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 7, 2024 20:11:35 GMT -5
You can call it what you want but, in the United States of America, defendants are supposed to be considered innocent until the prosecution proves they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by pinman on Jun 7, 2024 20:47:27 GMT -5
Nobody has to prove they didn’t do something that they were charged with. Thats not how the judicial system works. Or at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has the only burden of proof, according to the law. When the prosecutor feels that have enough evidence to prosecute you, you have your day in court to prove them wrong if you believe you are innocent. You can call it what you want, but every defendant who goes to trial is trying to prove he is not guilty while the prosecution proves he is guilty of the crime. Bullshit!!! In the US there is a presumption of innocence all through the trial. The prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense could present no evidence and have no testimony to the defendants innocence and still they could be found not guilty. The defense is not required to do ANYTHING to prove innocence. Do you actually know how this works?
|
|
|
Post by pinman on Jun 7, 2024 20:51:10 GMT -5
What about a 77 year old first time offender, convicted on a charge moved up from a misdemeanor to a felony by an overzealous prosecutor? Should they receive leniency? Asking for a friend....
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 8, 2024 5:50:12 GMT -5
When the prosecutor feels that have enough evidence to prosecute you, you have your day in court to prove them wrong if you believe you are innocent. You can call it what you want, but every defendant who goes to trial is trying to prove he is not guilty while the prosecution proves he is guilty of the crime. Bullshit!!! In the US there is a presumption of innocence all through the trial. The prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense could present no evidence and have no testimony to the defendants innocence and still they could be found not guilty. The defense is not required to do ANYTHING to prove innocence. Do you actually know how this works? Defendant is still in court convincing a judge or jury the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove their guilt. Their lawyer gives an opening and closing statement why he feels the prosecution has not proven their case. There is no defendant who does not present his side of the story. I know what the constitution says, but every defendant is proving the prosecution's evidence does not prove their guilt and they are not guilty. If they don't, the judge and jury will accept the prosecution's evidence as the facts or of the case, so a defendant has to prove he is not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 9, 2024 8:01:15 GMT -5
I suppose some like yourself see it like that. I don’t. Arguing the credibility of someone’s claims isn’t the equivalent of a requirement for a defendant to prove their innocence.
Pin is correct. The defense doesn’t have to do much more than point out the flaws of the prosecution. A good judge will do the same.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Jun 9, 2024 8:41:29 GMT -5
Bullshit!!! In the US there is a presumption of innocence all through the trial. The prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense could present no evidence and have no testimony to the defendants innocence and still they could be found not guilty. The defense is not required to do ANYTHING to prove innocence. Do you actually know how this works? Defendant is still in court convincing a judge or jury the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove their guilt. Their lawyer gives an opening and closing statement why he feels the prosecution has not proven their case. There is no defendant who does not present his side of the story. I know what the constitution says, but every defendant is proving the prosecution's evidence does not prove their guilt and they are not guilty. If they don't, the judge and jury will accept the prosecution's evidence as the facts or of the case, so a defendant has to prove he is not guilty. Maybe in a communist country. We are in America! You are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. In a fair trial all a defendant must do is poke holes in the prosecution’s theory. Unfortunately it seems that our system of justice has been “twisted out of shape” if not broken completely in the pursuit of attacking Donald Trump. The actions of these persons involved in this “law-fare” are the true threat to Democracy.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 9, 2024 12:16:13 GMT -5
Defendant is still in court convincing a judge or jury the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove their guilt. Their lawyer gives an opening and closing statement why he feels the prosecution has not proven their case. There is no defendant who does not present his side of the story. I know what the constitution says, but every defendant is proving the prosecution's evidence does not prove their guilt and they are not guilty. If they don't, the judge and jury will accept the prosecution's evidence as the facts or of the case, so a defendant has to prove he is not guilty. Maybe in a communist country. We are in America! You are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. In a fair trial all a defendant must do is poke holes in the prosecution’s theory. Unfortunately it seems that our system of justice has been “twisted out of shape” if not broken completely in the pursuit of attacking Donald Trump. The actions of these persons involved in this “law-fare” are the true threat to Democracy. Poking holes is proving his Innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Captj on Jun 9, 2024 13:40:08 GMT -5
Using Trump as an example of being convicted after his defence poked holes in the government's case is not a good analogy. Trump and his executives were dumb enough to keep written and audio trails of his/their misdeeds. Proof of their guilt was there in writing. What can't the Trumpers understand about the facts in his case being substantial and overwhelming. Although the Republicans make a career out of spinning lies and facts to validate their conspiracy theories pencil and paper don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 9, 2024 14:45:34 GMT -5
What you’re describing is not at all the same thing as a defendant being required to prove their innocence to the court. They already have a presumption of it.
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Jun 9, 2024 15:36:43 GMT -5
The DA will not charge anyone with a crime unless they have enough evidence to convict that person. Then it is referred to a judge who will review the case and decide whether to issue a warrant.
The fairest justice system in the world.
|
|