By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Mocks Alleged Sexual Assault Victim

Zucas said:
melbye said:

Good thing burden of proof is on the accuser then, any other way would be fit for a authoritarian country

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. 

Burden of proof should be absolutely certainty. We shouldnt ruin peoples lives over preponderance of evidence.



Around the Network
contestgamer said:
Zucas said:

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. 

Burden of proof should be absolutely certainty. We shouldnt ruin peoples lives over preponderance of evidence.

Well we do all the time. For instance, almost all civil proceedings involve a preponderance of evidence standard. It could cause loss of a house (foreclosure proceeding), child support, breach of contract, damages for negligence, bankruptcy, or deportation/removal in an immigration proceeding. So while I understand the emotion behind that, we "ruin" a person's life all the time with a preponderance of the evidence standard. 



President pussy grabber is the last person that should be taking about this



Trump is a piece of shit who has sexually assaulted women before and treats them like pieces of meat, including his own daughter. Of course he’d make a mockery of someone accusing his SC nominee.



I remember the temple and the day my mom slapped me in the face and locked the door on me. When? A time when I didn't know what swear words were. How old was I, I don't know. However I do know what happened and it's something I hated my mother for. After 36 years I doubt anyone can remember the exacts of something, but the event itself will always be ingrained. 36 years ago we barely had texting, and cellphones. it's not implausible to believe Ford after her testimony, and Brett's anger. 



Around the Network
Zucas said:
melbye said: I. ;., 

Good thing burden of proof is on the accuser then, any other way would be fit for a authoritarian country

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. 

And the prosecutor who interviewed her said that she would not have filed this case, or been able to obtain a subpoena, with what Ford has. Which is absolutely no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and a story that lacks any key details and has changed over the past few months. It's why the FBI originally turned down the chance to look into it. Dems knew this and that's why they knew they had to get Trump to order the investigation.

So, I'll believe her and the FBI over you, thank you very much. 



Why are people bringing up Kavanaugh getting angry as a point against him? Do you seriously think any normal person would not get angry at false accusations that could ruin their entire life? I think him being angry is a perfectly natural response...



Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Why are people bringing up Kavanaugh getting angry as a point against him? Do you seriously think any normal person would not get angry at false accusations that could ruin their entire life? I think him being angry is a perfectly natural response...

Since everything else seems to be falling apart, that's their fall back position. Of course, they know it's BS. They make excuses for SJWs the SCREEEE in public and are nothing but emotional. Or are fine when politicians on their side scream/yell damaging hyperbole and outright lies to attack their opponents. No, they are just grasping to find something. Anything. If he had been calm and collected, they would say that proves he did it or lacks the emotional depth to be on the Supreme Court. 



thismeintiel said:
Zucas said:

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. 

And the prosecutor who interviewed her said that she would not have filed this case, or been able to obtain a subpoena, with what Ford has. Which is absolutely no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and a story that lacks any key details and has changed over the past few months. It's why the FBI originally turned down the chance to look into it. Dems knew this and that's why they knew they had to get Trump to order the investigation.

So, I'll believe her and the FBI over you, thank you very much. 

Well you are allowed to do that. Your belief in them comes from a basic misunderstanding of the legal system as to what the prosecutor is talking about and the lens they are looking through of whether or not they would file charges. For instances, prosecutors have an ethical duty to not pursue charges if they don't think they could prove every element at trial. Thus, before bringing charges, they are making an ethical assessment of whether or not they could prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. If they don't think they can do that, then they can't ethically pursue an indictment. The standard is then taken in a different direction when it goes before a grand jury (if there is a grand jury) in there needs to be probable cause that a crime occurred. This means, would a reasonable person of reasonable caution believe that a crime more than likely occurred. 

In a civil proceeding, a plaintiff needs to show that there is enough factual allegations to state a claim is plausible on its face. If a plaintiff shows this, a defendant MUST respond otherwise they risk default judgment. 

 

You also have a pretty large misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence, what corroboration means, and how to obtain a subpoena. However, that's really not necessary for this discussion. Be happy to explain more if you want. Just send me a message :)



Zucas said:
melbye said:

Good thing burden of proof is on the accuser then, any other way would be fit for a authoritarian country

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. 

"Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that. "

simply by asserting that she was assaulted?

if i said right now that you assaulted me 10 years ago at a party would you give yourself up willingly to be sent to the gulag?