Official 2020 NFL Season Thread

[Smart Marx]

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.

 

[Smart Marx]

I have zero desire to stan for AB, though. I just think the timing is weird AF.

 

[Chris]

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.

 

[Smart Marx]

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]

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.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

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.

 

[Smart Marx]

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?

 

[Smart Marx]

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]

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.

 

[Smart Marx]

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.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

So uh. Apparently he texted her these gems.

 

[Smart Marx]

He knows people can screenshot their messages, right?

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

He knows people can screenshot their messages, right?

See what I mean by she must have some damning evidence?

 

[Smart Marx]

See what I mean by she must have some damning evidence?

I hope she has his phone number on those, though. Because she can name any contact AB.

 

[Chris]

He should be locked up just for that grammar alone