Trump loses 6% in the polls since his fake ear injury

[Skoob]

Pretty sure that's not true.
It isn't relevant here, though, since that wasn't something at stake in the decision.

"sexual predator" is term attributed by someone's moral beliefs. Someone cruising bars looking for consensual sex can be considered a sexual predator. "Predator" is a subjective term.
But I digress.

Fact is that the jury did not find rape.

Only the judge's explanation in the defamation case referred to "rape" as a term and there was no "conviction". ie it was an opinion to decide if there was indeed defamation not to determine guilt of rape.

 

[Valcazar]

When someone believes that someone is guilty based on their own opinion and bias, that's the court of public opinion.
ie OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, yet some people believe he's a murderer. They are entitled to their opinion.

YES!
They are entitled to their opinion!

Holy shit! You managed to understand it!

That's amazing. Have a cookie.

Now those people will say "Fuck, man, OJ is a murderer" and it will be perfectly correct for them to do so.

Because only a complete crackpot would think that you only get to call someone a "murderer" if they were specifically convicted of a crime called "murder" by the government jurisdiction able to prosecute that crime.

Good!
We agree!

Glad this has been settled.

Like I said, pretending to hold an absolutely crackpot position for some weird reason just made you look like a lunatic.

Imagine a society where someone is found not guilty in criminal court, but people continue to assume they are guilty. What then? Is that fair?

Of course it's fair.
It's totally fair for them to assume that based on the information they have at hand.

Hell, you've been doing that this whole time with Trump's convictions.

Someone may not agree with the verdict or believe the trial was unfair (which sometimes it is seeing as how appeals have overturned the original verdicts).

Yes.
Of course they can not agree with the verdict.
That's totally normal and proper.

You are responding to a conversation between another poster and myself.
Either follow along or don't jump in without understanding the context.

I have been following along.
Everytime I think you've abandoned your crackpot view of reality you bring it up again for reasons I cannot really fathom.

 

[Skoob]

My god!
It's almost like criminal court is its own thing with its own rules!
It's also as if I didn't say criminal penalties should be applied for the civil court findings.
Amazing!



You seem to be the only person who thinks anyone is in favor of people having criminal penalties imposed without due process.



Oh, so you are just completely delusional.
Gotcha.

Yes, there is a burden of proof in civil court.
Holy shit, what do you think goes on there?

And whether or not the person who assaulted someone is ever convicted in court, they still assaulted them.
That you think otherwise is really disturbing.
To be such an authoritarian follower that you will let the government tell you what reality is and then just believe them despite your own experience?
That's awful.

Criminal court is indeed different than civil court. Before we continue the conversation you might want to research the differences.
The burden of proof in civil court is significantly less than criminal court.

You are moving goal posts. If I witness someone assaulting someone, then they obviously did it.
But in a court of law, that has to be proven. If it's not proven, then it casts doubt as to if it actually happened and if someone would be convicted. It would leave the door open to all kinds of false accusations.
So you are arguing two different things and/or bastardizing a scenario completely.



" The burden of proof in a civil case is based upon a balance of probabilities. In contrast, the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the evidentiary standards differ significantly.
In a civil case, the party bringing the action need only establish that their version is more probable than not. The proof standard in this instance, therefore, sits at 50% or more.
If there is some doubt as to whether the defendant committed the wrongful act, the plaintiff can still succeed if they satisfy the judge that their version is more probable than the defendant’s version."

https://fosterslaw.ca/insights/who-...he evidentiary standards differ significantly.


Therefore in the Trump case, the jury did not find there was probability that rape had happened.

Now throw in a biased judge who is a long term friend of the prosecutor and you will have your answer.

 

[Valcazar]

"sexual predator" is term attributed by someone's moral beliefs. Someone cruising bars looking for consensual sex can be considered a sexual predator. "Predator" is a subjective term.
But I digress.

It is also a legal term in various jurisdictions.

It's almost like language is more complex than mere judicial rulings.
Weird.

Fact is that the jury did not find rape.

Which means the State of New York could not apply the penalties associated with a finding of rape under the laws of New York.

Only the judge's explanation in the defamation case referred to "rape" as a term and there was no "conviction". ie it was an opinion to decide if there was indeed defamation not to determine guilt of rape.

Exactly.
The jury found that Trump committed acts that would be recognized by common parlance and in many jurisdictions to be rape.
Therefore Trump trying to claim that it would be defamation to refer to him as a rapist was dismissed since it was based on the erroneous idea that "they didn't find me guilty of rape" meant he couldn't be considered a rapist.

 

[Valcazar]

Criminal court is indeed different than civil court. Before we continue the conversation you might want to research the differences.
The burden of proof in civil court is significantly less than criminal court.

It IS!

You looked it up and found that civil court DOES have a "burden of proof", it's just a different one.

I was getting worried about how far into an imaginary fantasy land you had wandered.

You are moving goal posts. If I witness someone assaulting someone, then they obviously did it.

Yes.
Exactly my point.

But in a court of law, that has to be proven. If it's not proven, then it casts doubt as to if it actually happened and if someone would be convicted. It would leave the door open to all kinds of false accusations.
So you are arguing two different things and/or bastardizing a scenario completely.

No.
I'm pointing out you have to be an idiot for thinking that "not proven in a court of criminal law to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt" means they didn't do it.
It means the government cannot treat them as if they did it.

I've been totally consistent.
You've been the one making the wildly foolish claim that no one can call Trump a rapist because of the finding of a New York civil case.

" The burden of proof in a civil case is based upon a balance of probabilities. In contrast, the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the evidentiary standards differ significantly.
In a civil case, the party bringing the action need only establish that their version is more probable than not. The proof standard in this instance, therefore, sits at 50% or more.
If there is some doubt as to whether the defendant committed the wrongful act, the plaintiff can still succeed if they satisfy the judge that their version is more probable than the defendant’s version."

https://fosterslaw.ca/insights/who-has-the-burden-of-proof-in-civil-cases/#:~:text=The burden of proof in a civil case is based,the evidentiary standards differ significantly.

Yes.
Very good.
You've looked something up.

Therefore in the Trump case, the jury did not find there was probability that rape had happened.

Correct.
They did not find that there was a probability he stuck his dick in her pussy.

Now, as I have repeatedly said - if that is the definition that you feel is the one and only true definition of rape, you are free to say so.

If you think the category of "rape" goes beyond that definition, then you have to think about what the jury did believe.

Now throw in a biased judge who is a long term friend of the prosecutor and you will have your answer.

Ah, we are back to "Only court findings matter unless I disagree with them", I see.

 

[Frankfooter]

Therefore in the Trump case, the jury did not find there was probability that rape had happened.

Wrong, the judge says the jury thought Carroll was raped by rump.

In other words, you don't support and accept verdicts when they don't jive with your narrative.
Sounds like the only sore loser here is you sunshine.

 

[Skoob]

It is also a legal term in various jurisdictions.

It's almost like language is more complex than mere judicial rulings.
Weird.



Which means the State of New York could not apply the penalties associated with a finding of rape under the laws of New York.



Exactly.
The jury found that Trump committed acts that would be recognized by common parlance and in many jurisdictions to be rape.
Therefore Trump trying to claim that it would be defamation to refer to him as a rapist was dismissed since it was based on the erroneous idea that "they didn't find me guilty of rape" meant he couldn't be considered a rapist.

You think he was stalking Carroll and followed her into that dept store change room like a tiger following a gazelle? Lol!

If the alleged incident happened in New York then NY law would apply. You may not like the local law, but different jurisdictions have their own laws. Just like it's illegal to climb a tree in Oshawa. Why? I have no idea but it's law there.

The jury didn't find rape. If they did, they would have noted that on their findings report. They didn't. That's my point.

 

[Frankfooter]

You think he was stalking Carroll and followed her into that dept store change room like a tiger following a gazelle? Lol!

If the alleged incident happened in New York then NY law would apply. You may not like the local law, but different jurisdictions have their own laws. Just like it's illegal to climb a tree in Oshawa. Why? I have no idea but it's law there.

The jury didn't find rape. If they did, they would have noted that on their findings report. They didn't. That's my point.

OMG.

Read the last line from the defamation decision, a jury believed rump raped Carroll.
Stop lying

 

[Skoob]

It IS!

You looked it up and found that civil court DOES have a "burden of proof", it's just a different one.


No.
I'm pointing out you have to be an idiot for thinking that "not proven in a court of criminal law to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt" means they didn't do it.
It means the government cannot treat them as if they did it.

I've been totally consistent.
You've been the one making the wildly foolish claim that no one can call Trump a rapist because of the finding of a New York civil case.



Correct.
They did not find that there was a probability he stuck his dick in her pussy.

Now, as I have repeatedly said - if that is the definition that you feel is the one and only true definition of rape, you are free to say so.

If you think the category of "rape" goes beyond that definition, then you have to think about what the jury did believe.



Ah, we are back to "Only court findings matter unless I disagree with them", I see.

So you agree that civil court requires far less proof and is more based on probability.

Anyone can think whatever they want. Heck Frankfooter believes the assassination attempt was a hoax ffs. That's not really the point here.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" helps to ensure that someone is not wrongfully convicted. So while you believe that someone is guilty regardless of the absence of proof and the court ruling, imagine a society that convicts people simply based on "what someone thinks happened"? Follow that through.

Therefore, if you believe in the criminal justice system, then criminal court rulings need to be respected even if you don't agree with them.

Civil court rulings are a different animal altogether and there is far more leeway on both sides. The point I have been making is that due to the difference between those two judicial systems, and based on the bias present from the judge, to the prosecutor to the media, it's no surprise that the court rules in Carroll's favour.

 

[Frankfooter]

Therefore, if you believe in the criminal justice system, then criminal court rulings need to be respected even if you don't agree with them.

Civil court rulings are a different animal altogether and there is far more leeway on both sides. The point I have been making is that due to the difference between those two judicial systems, and based on the bias present from the judge, to the prosecutor to the media, it's no surprise that the court rules in Carroll's favour.

 

[Skoob]

Wrong, the judge says the jury thought Carroll was raped by rump.

Except the jury didn't. So that word salad you keep posting is missing some key ingredients.

 

[Skoob]

OMG.

Read the last line from the defamation decision, a jury believed rump raped Carroll.
Stop lying

Just because you keep repeating lies doesn't make them true.

 

[Skoob]

 

[richaceg]

OMG.

Read the last line from the defamation decision, a jury believed rump raped Carroll.
Stop lying

you're free to call Trump a rapist... (public opinion)...I'm free to tell you he didn't...we can go in circles in this matter...end of the day...the convicted felon didn't serve a single day in jail because E.Jean Carroll failed to prove he did rape... the jury ruled "No Rape"....get over it...

 

[Frankfooter]

Except the jury didn't. So that word salad you keep posting is missing some key ingredients.

I think your brain is missing some key cells.
There was a jury at the defamation trial and as the judge clearly said, they believed that rump raped Carroll and then slandered her.

Trump scowls as jury is picked to decide how much he owes for defamation in E. Jean Carroll case

The ex-president appears in court for the start of the penalty phase of his civil defamation trial related to a jury's finding that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.

www.latimes.com

 

[Frankfooter]

you're free to call Trump a rapist... (public opinion)...I'm free to tell you he didn't...we can go in circles in this matter...end of the day...the convicted felon didn't serve a single day in jail because E.Jean Carroll failed to prove he did rape... the jury ruled "No Rape"....get over it...

Sure, you can stick to your opinion that rump isn't a rapist, isn't a felon, only weighs 200 lbs, earned all the money he inherited and doesn't cheat at golf. Just as you can take that opinion and let him take care of all your finances too, maybe even you can send your own daughter to some Trump Org/Epstein Island training for good measure.

I'll stick to the legal verdicts and the findings of the law.

 

[Skoob]

Sure, you can stick to your opinion that rump isn't a rapist, isn't a felon, only weighs 200 lbs, earned all the money he inherited and doesn't cheat at golf. Just as you can take that opinion and let him take care of all your finances too, maybe even you can send your own daughter to some Trump Org/Epstein Island training for good measure.

I'll stick to the legal verdicts and the findings of the law.

Katie H......another Mother Jones hack who helped conceal Biden's mental state for the past few years and deceived the American public.


And not calling out Carroll for lying....

"In Carroll’s testimony, which mirrored what she had described privately for decades and publicly for the first time in 2019, she said Trump used both his fingers and his penis in the assault. But during the trial, the jury had only concluded that Trump had “deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers,"


And she couldn't even remember the year.
You're a sucker.

 

[Frankfooter]

Katie H......another Mother Jones hack who helped conceal Biden's mental state for the past few years and deceived the American public.


And not calling out Carroll for lying....

"In Carroll’s testimony, which mirrored what she had described privately for decades and publicly for the first time in 2019, she said Trump used both his fingers and his penis in the assault. But during the trial, the jury had only concluded that Trump had “deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers,"


And she couldn't even remember the year.
You're a sucker.

The judge and the jury didn't buy rump's story.
They believed Carroll.

You are sheep.

 

[Skoob]

The judge and the jury didn't buy rump's story.
They believed Carroll.

You are sheep.

You mean they believed that he penetrated her with his penis as she claimed? No they didn't...you're lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

You mean they believed that he penetrated her with his penis as she claimed? No they didn't...you're lying.

Carroll said she couldn't tell if it was his tiny penis or his finger, you are the one lying.
She just said rump penetrated her against her will, or as the judge and jury found, he raped her.

Why are you working so hard to defend rape?