(08-18-2022 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 12:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 12:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 10:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 09:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, George's scenario actually fits the legal sense of the required application of facts *in the case*. So the scenario where the lad (the juror) shouts 'I dont care what the underlying facts are *in this case*, it is more likely that my predispositon of facts controls' is the exact equivalent of 'I dont care what the facts presented are *in this case*, based on my own rationale he is guilty' is exactly congruent and an exceptionally valid comparison.

That's the way I saw it as well.
To be more specific: the standard of proof in a civil trial is preponderance of evidence -- that is, does the evidence show it to be more likely than not that the defendant is guilty of the alleged wrong.

In the restaurant case, Lad explicitly concluded in this forum that it was more likely than not that the restaurant was oppressing the workers -- even though there was no evidence in the case to that effect. He based his conclusion in this case (which he stood by at length) entirely on his opinions about how other restaurants and other workers in other cases usually act.

That's exactly the kind of thing that jurors are NOT supposed to do -- and of course, exactly the kind of thing that many Jim Crow juries, Communist show trials, university disciplinary tribunals, and similar proceedings have infamously done. In such cases, the determining factor for the trier is the identify of the parties rather than the facts of the case. That's damnable -- but it also the hallmark of "progressive" thinking.

Perhaps Lad didn't really mean that that was his conclusion, or didn't really mean "more likely than not". But I went by his words (even though I was accused of not reading them).

But your applying legal standards to a sports message forum…

I dont care what forum it is -- I dont think it unfair to denote that you ignored that actual hard facts in this particular instance in favor of a rationale that had zero basis in the actual facts.

Bummer.

Quote:To be clearer, if I was a juror, I would not put forth a guilty/not guilty in any direction in this situation with respect to why the cooks left.

That is not inferrable in the slightest from the 'more likely' language you chose to use. In fact, your own language now cuts against your 'I couldnt make a verdict choice'.

In this particular forum, for this particular case, you did put forth your verdict. And based precisely, on the words *you* chose to use, on a standard that has a one to one equivalence in a court.

Case closed. Please, just give us a fing break over the continued contortions.

This is a first for me - apparently the posts being made here are equivalent to legal statements made in a court of law.

Do I need to add a note to my signature that says my comments are not legally binding in any way?

Seriously, this is a major stretch to equate me offering a frank opinion as me offering a legal verdict… There is no contortion here, just me being flabbergasted at how far some of y’all are willing to stretch this thing.

While I appreciate your candor and, to me, a much more thoughtful and reasonable back and forth than Ham, it’s laughable and nearly absurd to try and draw an equivalence between a Quad post and a statement in court.

To clarify, I didn't mean (and I don't think I said) that your posts here were equivalent to in-court statements or legal judgments. What I meant (and roughly what I said) is that the conclusion-reaching approach which your posts seem to reflect would be a very bad approach for a juror -- a point that I think you agree with.

If I was over the top, it was in saying "I hope Lad never serves on a jury" instead of "I hope no juror ever approaches the case before him the way Lad seems to be approaching this question." While I thought that was within the bounds of reasonable rhetorical license, it obviously struck a nerve.