Leticia James is a loser!!

[Skoob]

For the record, if you are going to make a claim here in the Politics Section it is expected that you will provide a link/reference to whatever source you believe supports your point of view.

If you want to offer your own opinion you are of course welcome to do so but none of us are under any obligation to take you seriously unless you provide actual evidence to support what you are claiming.

None of us are under any obligation to disprove your n̶o̶n̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶…errrr…point of view. The obligation is on you to prove it.

kapish?

Sounds like what laziness would sound like if it could speak.

Here...there's this thing called the "internet" and a website called "Google". Based on the info I provided, people who discover the wonders of how to operate a web search would simply type in what I shared and voila! Like pure magic, you would find exactly what I was referring to. No tricks or engineering degree required.

Because I feel generous I'll even provide instructions:

1) subscribe to an internet service from the provider of your choice or go to a library and borrow one of their computers (those things that look like TV's)
2) double click the icon that looks like a multi-coloured circle named "Google Chrome"
3) It will open to a screen that has a white square with a blinking cursor within it...don't be afraid...we can get through this together!
4) Use that thing with a bunch of buttons on it each labelled with letters, numbers and symbols and type: "2007 Northwestern jury accuracy study"
5) Press the Enter key...usually the one labelled "Enter"...you can use a single finger to do this...sometimes two...in your case, since you have small hands, I would suggest three.
6) Observe the list of items presented which apply to the topic at hand...read away and educate yourself!

Congratulations! If you've made it this far I assume you found what you're looking for!

You're welcome!

 

[Skoob]

You think the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is a conspiracy theory?

Sorry...you take so long to reply to posts that I'm not sure what the context of your question is and what it's related to?
Care to expand more than a sentence if a discussion is important to you?

 

[Skoob]

Huh.
It was working when I posted it.

It's a real study.

Different link here.

So happy to see you and FF figured out how to use the internet.
Teamwork makes the dream work!

 

[Valcazar]

So happy to see you and FF figured out how to use the internet.
Teamwork makes the dream work!

So "I googled it and read a blurb" is the entirety of your argument, then?

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry...you take so long to reply to posts that I'm not sure what the context of your question is and what it's related to?
Care to expand more than a sentence if a discussion is important to you?

The discussion was expanded on in the thread.
You seem to think that the idea an extremely high standard of proof for criminal court means the system is designed to err on the side of guilty people going free is a conspiracy theory.

You can just read the thread. It might help.

 

[Frankfooter]

That link doesn't work.
So maybe it did come from skoob.

That link works but doesn't support skoob's claim.
The study looked at when judges and juries disagreed on cases but that has nothing to do with which of them were 'right'.

 

[Valcazar]

That link works but doesn't support skoob's claim.
The study looked at when judges and juries disagreed on cases but that has nothing to do with which of them were 'right'.

There is a reason I asked him about the methodology.

 

[Skoob]

So "I googled it and read a blurb" is the entirety of your argument, then?

I would argue that Google is used by 99.999999999% of people on this board.
Do you prefer something else like Alta Vista?

 

[Skoob]

That link works but doesn't support skoob's claim.
The study looked at when judges and juries disagreed on cases but that has nothing to do with which of them were 'right'.

Looks like you didn't read the report correctly and have just made up your own interpretation of what the data implies as usual with everything you post.

 

[Skoob]

The discussion was expanded on in the thread.
You seem to think that the idea an extremely high standard of proof for criminal court means the system is designed to err on the side of guilty people going free is a conspiracy theory.

You can just read the thread. It might help.

It's funny how you just make up what you think other people have stated.

In simple terms, if you are going to convict someone in criminal court and have them potentially serve jail time, you would want the burden of proof to be much higher than if you are just suing someone in civil court for money. The criminal court system is not designed to let guilty people go free. That is not the intention while it may result in someone who is actually guilty going free due to lack of evidence.

Is that really too difficult for you to understand? I'm not sure what you have your shorts in a bunch over?

 

[Frankfooter]

Looks like you didn't read the report correctly and have just made up your own interpretation of what the data implies as usual with everything you post.

No, I read the report.
Clearly you didn't.

 

[Valcazar]

It's funny how you just make up what you think other people have stated.

In simple terms, if you are going to convict someone in criminal court and have them potentially serve jail time, you would want the burden of proof to be much higher than if you are just suing someone in civil court for money.

Yes.
This is what I have been saying.
You're the one who said it sounded like a conspiracy theory.

The criminal court system is not designed to let guilty people go free. That is not the intention while it may result in someone who is actually guilty going free due to lack of evidence.

Is that really too difficult for you to understand? I'm not sure what you have your shorts in a bunch over?

I'm not the one who does.
You are the one who says that " it may result in someone who is actually guilty going free due to lack of evidence" is a conspiracy theory, even though you just pointed out that it is exactly what the system is designed to do.

 

[Skoob]

No, I read the report.
Clearly you didn't.

If you really read it you wouldn't be making such cherry-picking statements and missing the entire context of the study.
Read it again. Put your confirmation bias on pause for a moment.

 

[Skoob]

Yes.
This is what I have been saying.
You're the one who said it sounded like a conspiracy theory.



I'm not the one who does.
You are the one who says that " it may result in someone who is actually guilty going free due to lack of evidence" is a conspiracy theory, even though you just pointed out that it is exactly what the system is designed to do.

A roof is designed to keep water out. Sometimes there are leaks.
It's not designed to leak. In fact, a lot of engineering goes into ensuring it never leaks but sometimes leaks happen for various reasons.

That does not mean that a roof is designed to leak.

Jeezus do you need pictures?

 

[Frankfooter]

If you really read it you wouldn't be making such cherry-picking statements and missing the entire context of the study.
Read it again. Put your confirmation bias on pause for a moment.

The statement I made was accurate.
You don't know because you haven't read the report you posted.

 

[Valcazar]

A roof is designed to keep water out. Sometimes there are leaks.
It's not designed to leak. In fact, a lot of engineering goes into ensuring it never leaks but sometimes leaks happen for various reasons.

That does not mean that a roof is designed to leak.

Jeezus do you need pictures?

No, your text descriptions of your issues are clear enough.