Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
A couple of key words here
" EVALUATING FACTS" even crittically she says! hmmm think now WD... the fact is this forum has annoymous posters say so as the only evidence to form" independent thought and opinion " oh did she say OPINION? yes I think she did . and that is all wd is saying it is "an opinion, an independant thought".
"the need to critically evalulate facts...no arest no charges ever brought forward, nameless faceless witness, often third or fourth or more hearsay.
Indeed we can all form an opinion. or independent thought.
not getting your point now you seem to be saying exactly what wd has been saying .
Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
A couple of key words here
" EVALUATING FACTS" even crittically she says! hmmm think now WD... the fact is this forum has annoymous posters say so as the only evidence to form" independent thought and opinion " oh did she say OPINION? yes I think she did . and that is all wd is saying it is "an opinion, an independant thought".
"the need to critically evalulate facts...no arest no charges ever brought forward, nameless faceless witness, often third or fourth or more hearsay.
Indeed we can all form an opinion. or independent thought.
not getting your point now you seem to be saying exactly what wd has been saying .
" EVALUATING FACTS" even crittically she says! hmmm think now WD... the fact is this forum has annoymous posters say so as the only evidence to form" independent thought and opinion " oh did she say OPINION? yes I think she did . and that is all wd is saying it is "an opinion, an independant thought".
"the need to critically evalulate facts...no arest no charges ever brought forward, nameless faceless witness, often third or fourth or more hearsay.
Indeed we can all form an opinion. or independent thought.
not getting your point now you seem to be saying exactly what wd has been saying .
I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.
I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.
the article is about jury selection and the media influence on who should be picked or not.
A verdict is not an opinion. far far from it. it is the law of which is prosecuted in the courts by evidence and much much more.
Do you know why we have supreme court judges or congress or legislators ?
give me a break here.
so your saying in America we can put a man or woman to death because of a jury's opinion?
A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people
The legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision
A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
A vague idea in which some confidence is placed
verdict
(law) the findings of a jury on issues of fact submitted to it for decision; can be used in formulating a judgment
We do not try people by popular opinion . maybe tazia you should study some more on how our system is working before you decide to set your self up as an expert in the field of law.
the article is about jury selection and the media influence on who should be picked or not.
That is just a small part of the overall article and is not the main point.
A verdict is not an opinion. far far from it. it is the law of which is prosecuted in the courts by evidence and much much more.
It is the opinion that the evidence meets the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you know why we have supreme court judges or congress or legislators ?
Legislators create laws. Judges render judgments on those laws which are written in the form of - opinions. Those opinions are based on facts and opinions about those facts and in the end are called judgments.
give me a break here.
so your saying in America we can put a man or woman to death because of a jury's opinion?
I think not . lolol.ol
Actually the jury renders the opinion that the prosecutor has met the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt. In capital cases no single jury has that say - unless the defendant gives up his/her right to appeal.
Why are we discussing this? The article does not support WD's stance.
One thing that is great about threads like this is formulating and conveying how you feel about something. One thing that got lost when we were in TWI was thinking critically. The top leadership were great manipulators of words and thoughts. Followers were relegated to just accepting what they said.
One of the biggest reasons that I ever started the forum section was to promote debate and let you really think, "what do you believe". We were deprived of that while in.
What people belive is as wide as the world itself pawtucket.
no boundaries, no rules, no right or wrong, no standard , no facts needed here just thoughts generated from whatever .
no manipulation heck anything is gospel on the internet.
many just accept what another says as truth here as well. and facts are manipulated no prove is ever needed.
so compared to twi I have to say this is not exactly the perfect solution .
I think those who get involved with twi can be aware of alot more information than I could when I joined for sure in part because of sites like greaspot. BUT to stretch that into somthing it isnt is wrong in my OPINION.
I also believe anyone savy enough to use the internet (who isnt today?) can clearly see if VPW or LCM ever got into trouble with the law in civil or criminal matters! and to state falsehoods here lessen the over all integrity of what this site could offer.
I believe the facts are enough to help people become informed. The claims which are only hear say and often times sound outrageous help no one but the tale bearer esteem their own self to the site.
....aaaaand this information is considered *stretched* and *false hoods* because it doesn`t match up with the way one personally wishes to view things? I don`t like what you wrote, or the implications it has to my belief system..so there for you MUST be lying...eh?
I personally find it surprising that people are willing to call hundreds of posters liars whom have related their personal experiences, people they don`t know all in defense of men whom the accusers in all likely hood never met or spent time with on a personal basis either.
The finger pointers don`t know the guys they are defending any better than the people they are accusing of false hoods....yet it is a lot easier to label the victims as liars then to examine ones critical thinking and perceptions of beliefs.
Thanks Pawtucket for providing these forums. I had been out of twi for 5 years before gs, and had really not progressed at all in my critical thinking, or changed my beliefs. It was in the discussion of ideas amongst other people that didn`t exactly think like I did, having to defend my notions, learning to read and consider others...that I began to heal, to question, to grow again. All I can say is that your efforts have made a huge difference in one family.
It comes back to what i said before it is the standards in which one chooses to form their decisions.
for some it is their friends on the internet... but I think and he can certainly explain his own self for WD and anyone who may be looking for information about twi, the standard may have to be different and with integrity and some of the implications on this site have zero integrity which may or may not be considered a common standard for all, it can be considered a base line to form a belief.
I do not think it is about defending anyone really not in my thinking it is about reasonable thinking for self but again it is with a set standard of what is truth and I assume few posters coming here for information have a social circle set up and can also think about where their base line belief is.
PFAL is a hard sell and if you know it than you know it is sold with more at stake than some friends you may form on a forum with stories to tell... and what is bothersome is the dismissing of the accounts that can be verified as accurant due to the constant implications that appear without any substance or proof.
Critical thinking can take place without putting in stipulations such as "presumption of innocence," particularly when it is a moot point and serves no other purpose other than to be a distraction.
I also believe anyone savy enough to use the internet (who isnt today?) can clearly see if VPW or LCM ever got into trouble with the law in civil or criminal matters! and to state falsehoods here lessen the over all integrity of what this site could offer.
</snip>
actually it's not that easy to find out on the internet whether people have been in trouble with the law. most criminal and legal cases are not published on the internet. usually you have to go to wherever records are stored, county by county, and look through the archives. if you can't do it, you have to hire a researcher.
Critical thinking can take place without putting in stipulations such as "presumption of innocence," particularly when it is a moot point and serves no other purpose other than to be a distraction.
I have to say WD, after your last post to me. . . . I have really learned something.
This is exactly how we fell for and defended TWI's convoluted and weak explanations of controversial doctrines and scripture.
Arguing incessantly over words. . . trying to give them new definitions and meanings. That is how we missed the most basic and obvious understanding of scripture. Legalese which really was a TWISTING of their intent and meaning.
That is how we missed the revelation of God in scripture. We could never let the words speak to us. . . we spoke for the words.
It is a bad mindset if you are searching for the hidden things of God. They remain hidden.
I take it you still think VP actually taught you the bible? Rightly divided word?
Go back, and with open eyes read your twisted understanding of law. Then take that revelation and with new eyes, apply it to how you read the bible. . . . .
You will have some great deliverance.
I wish you well with it. . . it is a good chance for you to wake up!
And just to add: I actually have spent a great deal of time in courtrooms and with lawyers. . . DA's . . . and judges. . . I advocate for prisoners. They read the letters I write. . . right at the bench and consider them when rendering a verdict. More than once, I have gotten a judge to change their mind on something, by simply testifying to a few simple truths. You are clueless how things really work.
Arguing incessantly over words. . . trying to give them new definitions and meanings. That is how we missed the most basic and obvious understanding of scripture. Legalese which really was a TWISTING of their intent and meaning.
Gee sorry those definitions get in your way, good luck with letting the words speak whatever you like to hear.
I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.
The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
I personally find it surprising that people are willing to call hundreds of posters liars whom have related their personal experiences, people they don`t know all in defense of men whom the accusers in all likely hood never met or spent time with on a personal basis either.
The finger pointers don`t know the guys they are defending any better than the people they are accusing of false hoods....yet it is a lot easier to label the victims as liars then to examine ones critical thinking and perceptions of beliefs.
I find it surprising that some continue to misrepresent others point of view despite numerous times it has been clarified. It has been well established that I have never made claim that anyone was a liar, nor have I said anyone was. My claim has been consistent the information is not documented by any hard evidence.
But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. You may choose to believe one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. You choose to accept it because of your bias toward the group that does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another
It comes back to what i said before it is the standards in which one chooses to form their decisions.
Exactly right, some people like to have factual documentation , some just accept whatever someone's says as fact, especially if it fits with their agenda.
The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings
Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a
medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.
Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,
but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.
If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,
say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,
that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,
feel free to post a link.
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how
presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.
How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain
Excuse me?? I didn`t misrepresent anything Dove, My post wasn`t directed to you...What *I* was referring to was a previous post where it was said that people here falsified facts.
As far as what you personally choose to believe? I`d personally would call it something else entirely, however that is your affair....what I do have a problem with is attempts to silence peoples experiences and input because they don`t measure up to some goofy made up standard.
I understand that in order to continue the masquerade that the ministry was a legitimate christian organization, or that vpw a genuine Christian, a man of the spirit...in order to feel validated in ourselves and our belief systems...indeed what we dedicated our lives to, we must try to eliminate the evidence of the fruit in his life...the clear indications that give evidence to the evil man that he was...I get it..I really do, I understand that one must make the folks with experience to the contrary as somehow untruthful...or lacking legitimacy, in order to maintain ones personal perceptions.
You know? These arguments arguing the legality of posting if our experiences here remind me forcefully of twi doctrine and teachings.
They sound and look well meaning on the surface, a legitimate consideration....but in reality are designed to accomplish another goal entirely.....And when one carefully begins to examine the content of either...it could be interpreted or construed as nothing more than a means to an end.
The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings
Interesting that you would use a logical fallacy to support your opinion.
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
Is the only difference between you and the lawyer who wrote the piece is that you aren't tired of people calling you on your stance?
I find it surprising that some continue to misrepresent others point of view despite numerous times it has been clarified. It has been well established that I have never made claim that anyone was a liar, nor have I said anyone was. My claim has been consistent the information is not documented by any hard evidence.
But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. You may choose to believe one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. You choose to accept it because of your bias toward the group that does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another
One of the difficult things is that the people in TWI leadership that have and continue to perpetrate, foment, and support these atrocities cover up their actions. They will not discuss actions publicly, or allow any factual evidence to come to light that they can control. They spin personal accounts, and continue to mark and avoid people, which closes the ranks around their version of facts. Part of this is due to fear of legal repurcusssions.
So reasonable logical people in the absense of actual factual evidence need to reconstruct factual evidence through sources that they judge as reliable although they may not be to the level required by a court. However, on the other side, court proceedings have leverage in place such as the deposition process and consequences for false or incomplete testimony that also are not available to the individual. In other words, that leverage makes it more difficult for leaders to lie to cover up their atrocities. A clear example of this is that leverage is what flushed out LCM acts which he previously lied about.
So whether or not individual detailed personal accounts of atrocities are "documentable" or not is irrelevant. In a public forum, they can be laid out for examination. If the leaders being accused want to refute the accuracy of these claims, they are certainly welcome to do so in the same public forum.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 7
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 7 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw
waysider
Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion
GarthP2000
((As WD's interpretation of 'Presumption of Innocence' goes into a final tailspin:))
Let us mourn for the dead. ((snif))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
A couple of key words here
" EVALUATING FACTS" even crittically she says! hmmm think now WD... the fact is this forum has annoymous posters say so as the only evidence to form" independent thought and opinion " oh did she say OPINION? yes I think she did . and that is all wd is saying it is "an opinion, an independant thought".
"the need to critically evalulate facts...no arest no charges ever brought forward, nameless faceless witness, often third or fourth or more hearsay.
Indeed we can all form an opinion. or independent thought.
not getting your point now you seem to be saying exactly what wd has been saying .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
A couple of key words here
" EVALUATING FACTS" even crittically she says! hmmm think now WD... the fact is this forum has annoymous posters say so as the only evidence to form" independent thought and opinion " oh did she say OPINION? yes I think she did . and that is all wd is saying it is "an opinion, an independant thought".
"the need to critically evalulate facts...no arest no charges ever brought forward, nameless faceless witness, often third or fourth or more hearsay.
Indeed we can all form an opinion. or independent thought.
not getting your point now you seem to be saying exactly what wd has been saying .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the article is about jury selection and the media influence on who should be picked or not.
A verdict is not an opinion. far far from it. it is the law of which is prosecuted in the courts by evidence and much much more.
Do you know why we have supreme court judges or congress or legislators ?
give me a break here.
so your saying in America we can put a man or woman to death because of a jury's opinion?
I think not . lolol.ol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
opinion
A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people
The legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision
A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
A vague idea in which some confidence is placed
verdict
(law) the findings of a jury on issues of fact submitted to it for decision; can be used in formulating a judgment
We do not try people by popular opinion . maybe tazia you should study some more on how our system is working before you decide to set your self up as an expert in the field of law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
That is just a small part of the overall article and is not the main point.
It is the opinion that the evidence meets the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legislators create laws. Judges render judgments on those laws which are written in the form of - opinions. Those opinions are based on facts and opinions about those facts and in the end are called judgments.
Actually the jury renders the opinion that the prosecutor has met the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt. In capital cases no single jury has that say - unless the defendant gives up his/her right to appeal.
Why are we discussing this? The article does not support WD's stance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
For What It is Worth
One thing that is great about threads like this is formulating and conveying how you feel about something. One thing that got lost when we were in TWI was thinking critically. The top leadership were great manipulators of words and thoughts. Followers were relegated to just accepting what they said.
One of the biggest reasons that I ever started the forum section was to promote debate and let you really think, "what do you believe". We were deprived of that while in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
What people belive is as wide as the world itself pawtucket.
no boundaries, no rules, no right or wrong, no standard , no facts needed here just thoughts generated from whatever .
no manipulation heck anything is gospel on the internet.
many just accept what another says as truth here as well. and facts are manipulated no prove is ever needed.
so compared to twi I have to say this is not exactly the perfect solution .
I think those who get involved with twi can be aware of alot more information than I could when I joined for sure in part because of sites like greaspot. BUT to stretch that into somthing it isnt is wrong in my OPINION.
I also believe anyone savy enough to use the internet (who isnt today?) can clearly see if VPW or LCM ever got into trouble with the law in civil or criminal matters! and to state falsehoods here lessen the over all integrity of what this site could offer.
I believe the facts are enough to help people become informed. The claims which are only hear say and often times sound outrageous help no one but the tale bearer esteem their own self to the site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
....aaaaand this information is considered *stretched* and *false hoods* because it doesn`t match up with the way one personally wishes to view things? I don`t like what you wrote, or the implications it has to my belief system..so there for you MUST be lying...eh?
I personally find it surprising that people are willing to call hundreds of posters liars whom have related their personal experiences, people they don`t know all in defense of men whom the accusers in all likely hood never met or spent time with on a personal basis either.
The finger pointers don`t know the guys they are defending any better than the people they are accusing of false hoods....yet it is a lot easier to label the victims as liars then to examine ones critical thinking and perceptions of beliefs.
Thanks Pawtucket for providing these forums. I had been out of twi for 5 years before gs, and had really not progressed at all in my critical thinking, or changed my beliefs. It was in the discussion of ideas amongst other people that didn`t exactly think like I did, having to defend my notions, learning to read and consider others...that I began to heal, to question, to grow again. All I can say is that your efforts have made a huge difference in one family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
It comes back to what i said before it is the standards in which one chooses to form their decisions.
for some it is their friends on the internet... but I think and he can certainly explain his own self for WD and anyone who may be looking for information about twi, the standard may have to be different and with integrity and some of the implications on this site have zero integrity which may or may not be considered a common standard for all, it can be considered a base line to form a belief.
I do not think it is about defending anyone really not in my thinking it is about reasonable thinking for self but again it is with a set standard of what is truth and I assume few posters coming here for information have a social circle set up and can also think about where their base line belief is.
PFAL is a hard sell and if you know it than you know it is sold with more at stake than some friends you may form on a forum with stories to tell... and what is bothersome is the dismissing of the accounts that can be verified as accurant due to the constant implications that appear without any substance or proof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
What or whom exactly on this site has zero integrity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Critical thinking can take place without putting in stipulations such as "presumption of innocence," particularly when it is a moot point and serves no other purpose other than to be a distraction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
actually it's not that easy to find out on the internet whether people have been in trouble with the law. most criminal and legal cases are not published on the internet. usually you have to go to wherever records are stored, county by county, and look through the archives. if you can't do it, you have to hire a researcher.
yep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Gee sorry those definitions get in your way, good luck with letting the words speak whatever you like to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I find it surprising that some continue to misrepresent others point of view despite numerous times it has been clarified. It has been well established that I have never made claim that anyone was a liar, nor have I said anyone was. My claim has been consistent the information is not documented by any hard evidence.
But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. You may choose to believe one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. You choose to accept it because of your bias toward the group that does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly right, some people like to have factual documentation , some just accept whatever someone's says as fact, especially if it fits with their agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a
medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.
Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,
but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.
If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,
say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,
that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,
feel free to post a link.
He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how
presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.
How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain
to you how to perform it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Excuse me?? I didn`t misrepresent anything Dove, My post wasn`t directed to you...What *I* was referring to was a previous post where it was said that people here falsified facts.
As far as what you personally choose to believe? I`d personally would call it something else entirely, however that is your affair....what I do have a problem with is attempts to silence peoples experiences and input because they don`t measure up to some goofy made up standard.
I understand that in order to continue the masquerade that the ministry was a legitimate christian organization, or that vpw a genuine Christian, a man of the spirit...in order to feel validated in ourselves and our belief systems...indeed what we dedicated our lives to, we must try to eliminate the evidence of the fruit in his life...the clear indications that give evidence to the evil man that he was...I get it..I really do, I understand that one must make the folks with experience to the contrary as somehow untruthful...or lacking legitimacy, in order to maintain ones personal perceptions.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
You know? These arguments arguing the legality of posting if our experiences here remind me forcefully of twi doctrine and teachings.
They sound and look well meaning on the surface, a legitimate consideration....but in reality are designed to accomplish another goal entirely.....And when one carefully begins to examine the content of either...it could be interpreted or construed as nothing more than a means to an end.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Interesting that you would use a logical fallacy to support your opinion.
Is the only difference between you and the lawyer who wrote the piece is that you aren't tired of people calling you on your stance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So many wasted words.
Wierwille was a conman.
He exploited our trust to perpetuate his own life of drunkenness, debauchery and greed.
No court ruling could ever change that.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
One of the difficult things is that the people in TWI leadership that have and continue to perpetrate, foment, and support these atrocities cover up their actions. They will not discuss actions publicly, or allow any factual evidence to come to light that they can control. They spin personal accounts, and continue to mark and avoid people, which closes the ranks around their version of facts. Part of this is due to fear of legal repurcusssions.
So reasonable logical people in the absense of actual factual evidence need to reconstruct factual evidence through sources that they judge as reliable although they may not be to the level required by a court. However, on the other side, court proceedings have leverage in place such as the deposition process and consequences for false or incomplete testimony that also are not available to the individual. In other words, that leverage makes it more difficult for leaders to lie to cover up their atrocities. A clear example of this is that leverage is what flushed out LCM acts which he previously lied about.
So whether or not individual detailed personal accounts of atrocities are "documentable" or not is irrelevant. In a public forum, they can be laid out for examination. If the leaders being accused want to refute the accuracy of these claims, they are certainly welcome to do so in the same public forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.