• Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Official 2019 NFL Regular Season Thread

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
That's also fair and I don't really disagree with it, but it goes both ways. The justice system purposely uses the terms "guilty" and "not guilty" (not innocent) because just because someone is proven not guilty does not mean they were innocent, it's just not enough proof to confirm guilt...so by that it's also unfair to say a rape claim is false just because the accused is deemed "not guilty" as there's also probably not enough evidence to prove the alleged victim was lying about it so women shouldn't be villified for coming forward unless it's proven 100% that they were lying just like someone shouldn't be called a rapist for the same reasons.
I don't really like looking at things that way, Especially if someone is acquitted. You're supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers. Not judged by the world for the rest of your life. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. We don't need to prove they were lying, they need to prove they weren't. I just wish people didn't lie and this would be so much easier. Unfortunately, they do.
 

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
I have zero desire to stan for AB, though. I just think the timing is weird AF.
 

Chris

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Dec 23, 2011
26,907
5,124
113
23
Just West of Parts Unkown
I don't really like looking at things that way, Especially if someone is acquitted. You're supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers. Not judged by the world for the rest of your life. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. We don't need to prove they were lying, they need to prove they weren't. I just wish people didn't lie and this would be so much easier. Unfortunately, they do.
Yeah that's 100% true, I'm just saying if someone is acquitted, I'm not going to jump on the accuser and say she was lying because there wasn't enough proof provided. I'll accept the acquittal, but the accuser is only guilty of lying IMO if they get counter sued for the false accusations and there's enough proof there. I just don't like calling people liars for things as seriously as rape because it makes it that much harder when there's legitimate rape cases that are just hard to prove to have any sort of justice, and of course I blame the cunts lying about it in the first place for that.
 

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
Yeah that's 100% true, I'm just saying if someone is acquitted, I'm not going to jump on the accuser and say she was lying because there wasn't enough proof provided. I'll accept the acquittal, but the accuser is only guilty of lying IMO if they get counter sued for the false accusations and there's enough proof there. I just don't like calling people liars for things as seriously as rape because it makes it that much harder when there's legitimate rape cases that are just hard to prove to have any sort of justice, and of course I blame the cunts lying about it in the first place for that.
I have no desire to go after the accuser unless they or other people continue to harass the acquitted.
 

Chris

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Dec 23, 2011
26,907
5,124
113
23
Just West of Parts Unkown
I have no desire to go after the accuser unless they or other people continue to harass the acquitted.
Yeah I'd hope not, I wasn't really talking about you lol more just a general sentiment. But I also won't 100% say the accused was innocent when we all know the justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to go off so I also think they shouldn't have any negative effects as far as their careers or general livelihood go if they're found not guilty.
 

Grim

A Very Barry Mod
Super Moderator
Mar 7, 2019
5,434
1,204
113
23
Sleepy Eye
facebook.com
I have zero desire to stan for AB, though. I just think the timing is weird AF.
Here's why I think it's a Civil Suit and not a Criminal Arrest.

Civil Suits don't use Burden of Proof. Civil Suits use Preponderance of the Evidence. That means if the Evidence at least 51% matches what the plaintiff is saying, then the trial will go to the plaintiff.

I'm thinking in this day and age, if the plaintiff is going whole hog with this lawsuit, she likely has some damning evidence against Brown.
 

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
Yeah I'd hope not, I wasn't really talking about you lol more just a general sentiment. But I also won't 100% say the accused was innocent when we all know the justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to go off so I also think they shouldn't have any negative effects as far as their careers or general livelihood go if they're found not guilty.
It isn't perfect, but it's the only thing we got.

We have to give the acquitted the benefit of the doubt if a jury deemed they weren't guilty or what's the point?
 

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
Here's why I think it's a Civil Suit and not a Criminal Arrest.

Civil Suits don't use Burden of Proof. Civil Suits use Preponderance of the Evidence. That means if the Evidence at least 51% matches what the plaintiff is saying, then the trial will go to the plaintiff.

I'm thinking in this day and age, if the plaintiff is going whole hog with this lawsuit, she likely has some damning evidence against Brown.
Yeah, which is why this hurts it even more. Who needs that pesky burden of proof.

Even if we throw the Pats/Raiders thing out, seems like a money ploy, but we'll see how it develops.
 

Chris

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Dec 23, 2011
26,907
5,124
113
23
Just West of Parts Unkown
It isn't perfect, but it's the only thing we got.

We have to give the acquitted the benefit of the doubt if a jury deemed they weren't guilty or what's the point?
I can't give them the benefit of the doubt without also giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt that they weren't lying though is all I'm saying. I agree the burden of proof needs to be on the accuser because I'd rather someone guilty walk free than someone innocent serve time, but I'm not gonna make an absolute decision for my personal opinions just because the legal system needs to be set up that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sylar

Sylar

Evil Owner
Administrator
Jun 28, 2010
58,869
4,233
113
33
Bo$$ton
I can't give them the benefit of the doubt without also giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt that they weren't lying though is all I'm saying. I agree the burden of proof needs to be on the accuser because I'd rather someone guilty walk free than someone innocent serve time, but I'm not gonna make an absolute decision for my personal opinions just because the legal system needs to be set up that way.
Their benefit of the doubt was waived when they accused someone of a crime. Which they took to trial and the acquitted was then deemed not guilty. You don't have to call the accuser a liar, but all I'm saying is an acquitted person should be viewed the same as before the accusation was made. Agreed on the last part. I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent be locked up. There was a case not too long ago where a man was locked up for decades for a rape he didn't commit. I just hate seeing man's life taken from him.