ForumGarden

Anas - I have to agree with you on your points that Mr. Jackson is a freak and why he may have come to this situation in his life. He was found not guilty and I will accept that as I do believe in our justice system. I would never be comfortable around him nor would I ever leave a child alone with him. Maybe he is truly lost in his own Neverland and is not in touch with what society deems proper behavior. If this is the case - I feel sorry for him.

anastrophe wrote: a presumption of innocence is not the same as innocent. an acquittal on charges is not the same as innocent of the charges. not guilty is not the same as innocent.Where have I suggested otherwise? Nowhere have I said he *is* innocent. How could I say that? You're trying to make it sound as though I've said something other than what I have written.

the presumption and an acquittal are two different terms of art here. do you think oj was factually innocent because he was aquitted by a lot of chowderheads? his presumption of innocence was for the duration of the trial. you can bet there will be a civil action now where he can be found "responsible", the burden of proof is much lower.

lady cop wrote: the presumption and an acquittal are two different terms of art here. do you think oj was factually innocent because he was aquitted by a lot of chowderheads? his presumption of innocence was for the duration of the trial. you can bet there will be a civil action now where he can be found "responsible", the burden of proof is much lower.


I think chowderhead gave you away LC :-2

spot wrote: Where have I suggested otherwise? Nowhere have I said he *is* innocent. How could I say that? You're trying to make it sound as though I've said something other than what I have written.what you stated was that my comment was an abuse of language and logic...when in fact this is my area of expertise.

lady cop wrote: his presumption of innocence was for the duration of the trial.Well, no, actually. His presumption of innocence was until he was found guilty.

lady cop wrote: what you stated was that my comment was an abuse of language and logic...when in fact this is my area of expertise.You have no idea how much that disturbs me.

spot wrote: You have no idea how much that disturbs me.and why would that be?

flopstock wrote:

Question now is, will anyone around him have the balls to say outloud to Michael ' Can you stop with this **** now, you stupid *******!


:yh_worshp :yh_rotfl

lady cop wrote: and why would that be?You have no idea how much that disturbs me, Lady, because I refuse to fight with you. I've made all the points I intended to make. Descending to personal abuse is surely uncalled for.

Either the points I've made have been both reasonable and accurate, or they haven't. I have my opinion about that. I find the sticking of mud to anyone's reputation, after a jury in possession of far more evidence has made a unanimous decision in the setting of a law court, distasteful, though it would seem people can indulge themselves that way without penalty if it excites them to. Comments on Mr Jackson's wisdom are one thing, but calling the verdict unbelievable is quite another.

Spot, where did i abuse you??? and people in the public domain, such as jackson, are subject to opinions.

spot wrote: You have no idea how much that disturbs me, Lady, because I refuse to fight with you. I've made all the points I intended to make. Descending to personal abuse is surely uncalled for.



Either the points I've made have been both reasonable and accurate, or they haven't. I have my opinion about that. I find the sticking of mud to anyone's reputation, after a jury in possession of far more evidence has made a unanimous decision in the setting of a law court, distasteful, though it would seem people can indulge themselves that way without penalty if it excites them to. Comments on Mr Jackson's wisdom are one thing, but calling the verdict unbelievable is quite another.
sigh. time to start wielding the clue-bat i guess.



what, exactly, are you prattling on about here spot? please provide a citation, within this thread, where "calling the verdict unbelievable" has been tendered, suggested, proferred, implied, hinted at, alleged, or whatever you choose on that count.



LC wrote:

an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven

you wrote in reply:

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.

now, what, exactly, is your beef? you state that the statement is an abuse of both language and logic. please justify your contention on those counts. i'm beginning to think that your beef hinges on one word, which is ambiguous, but within the context should not be difficult for the acute mind to concieve accurately.



so, now's your chance. explain why the sentence is an abuse of language and logic. not meta-explanation, actual explanation. provide the basis in logic upon which the statement is invalid.

anastrophe wrote: sigh. time to start wielding the clue-bat i guess.



what, exactly, are you prattling on about here spot? please provide a citation, within this thread, where "calling the verdict unbelievable" has been tendered, suggested, proferred, implied, hinted at, alleged, or whatever you choose on that count.Some people just can't be bothered to go back and look... Today, 10:15 PM #13 lady cop: not guilty of conspiracy. not guilty lewd act. more to come..........all counts, not guilty. unbelievable.

spot wrote: Some people just can't be bothered to go back and look... Today, 10:15 PM #13 lady cop: not guilty of conspiracy. not guilty lewd act. more to come..........all counts, not guilty. unbelievable.


great. now address the main thrust of my post. okay? you juxtaposed that comment with other comments lc has made. are you being intentionally vague/opaque?

anastrophe wrote:

LC wrote:

an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven

you wrote in reply:

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.

now, what, exactly, is your beef? you state that the statement is an abuse of both language and logic. please justify your contention on those counts. i'm beginning to think that your beef hinges on one word, which is ambiguous, but within the context should not be difficult for the acute mind to concieve accurately.



so, now's your chance. explain why the sentence is an abuse of language and logic. not meta-explanation, actual explanation. provide the basis in logic upon which the statement is invalid.I mentioned it a little earlier - the overriding assumption that nobody leaves a court with a stain on their character, if found not guilty. LC is dabbing mud all over the reputation of this man solely because he's been prosecuted. I find that abhorrent.

As for the difference between "innocent" and "presumed innocent" - the former is untestable by any of us. The latter has been declared by the jury. Can we please start presuming, even at this late stage? "just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is a tar brush. Who's got the feathers?

anastrophe wrote: are you being intentionally vague/opaque?Not at all, dear boy, it's just that you seem to have rather more time on your hands to throw multi-posts at me, and I happen to be filling in a lot of spreadsheet cells for my brother who needs the result by the weekend. You have a modicum of my attention, but not a preponderance.

spot wrote: I mentioned it a little earlier - the overriding assumption that nobody leaves a court with a stain on their character, if found not guilty. LC is dabbing mud all over the reputation of this man solely because he's been prosecuted. I find that abhorrent.



As for the difference between "innocent" and "presumed innocent" - the former is untestable by any of us. The latter has been declared by the jury. Can we please start presuming, even at this late stage? "just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is a tar brush. Who's got the feathers?
okay, i guess vague/opaque will carry the day. you still have not explained the abuse of logic in the statement. the statement is in fact factually correct. again, i think this is hinging on one word, which you are interpreting one way, and everybody else is interpreting another.



but since you refuse, apparently, to explain anything beyond the stain on his character (this is an absurd point of contention, in fact - the person leaves *court* with no legal stain on their character, but that is irrelevant to the world outside the court, unless you intend to legislate restrictions on opinions), we'll have to leave you to the morass of your alleged skills with 'logic'.

spot wrote: Not at all, dear boy, it's just that you seem to have rather more time on your hands to throw multi-posts at me, and I happen to be filling in a lot of spreadsheet cells for my brother who needs the result by the weekend. You have a modicum of my attention, but not a preponderance.
not too busy to recklessly spill about condemnations of others for their 'abuse' of language and logic, but too busy to defend them.



i expected no less.

anastrophe wrote: okay, i guess vague/opaque will carry the day. you still have not explained the abuse of logic in the statement. the statement is in fact factually correct. again, i think this is hinging on one word, which you are interpreting one way, and everybody else is interpreting another.
oh, and for those who are beyond confused, i'll point out that the word that i believe is being interpreted differently is *not* 'innocent'. the interpretation of that one word completely changes the tone of the statement depending upon how you choose to read it.

anastrophe wrote: not too busy to recklessly spill about condemnations of others for their 'abuse' of language and logic, but too busy to defend them.



i expected no less.Let me try one more time. Not that I expect anything but antagonism from you, since you've said before that's all I'll get from you.

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is an abuse of both language and logic in that "actually innocent" has nothing to do with the acquittal. Butting the two concepts together as though they were related is the abuse of logic. Making it look like a statement in logic, while comparing unrelated facts, is not what language is for. It's muddying, not clarifying.

For further discussion of "actually innocent" vis a vis "presumed innocent", see above, passim.

anastrophe wrote: oh, and for those who are beyond confused, i'll point out that the word that i believe is being interpreted differently is *not* 'innocent'.Go for it, dear boy, tell us what it is, then. Your audience is unenlightened so far, I suspect.

i still want to know where i 'abused' Spot. ....but aside from that, every commentator on cable here is proferring their opinions, and so did people here. so i can say UNBELIEVABLE if that is my constitutioally protected opinion, which seems to be one offense i committed.

lady cop wrote: as to legal terms of art here, i taught criminal law at our academy, so PERHAPS i have a small clue whereof i speak. there ARE differences between those concepts under the law.This may, perhaps, be where any misunderstanding has arisen, Lady, if you're employing legal terms of art. To the best of my knowledge, that expression means the use of words in a legal context which may have different meanings from a definition one would find in a standard dictionary. You'll excuse me if, being foreign and not being an officer of the law, I have no way of distinguishing the special sense in which you use your terms. Perhaps tar and feathers is an uncalled for misinterpretation of your tone toward the person in question.

I haven't claimed to be abused, I said that I'd shut up for fear of sounding abusive - something I tend to sound like now and then, I've been repeatedly told.

There seems to be some strange editing of this thread which are beyond my powers to replicate. When post numbers start going down I wonder who and what is being deleted.

NOBODY has edited or deleted anything here, unless the posters themselves did it. and yes, legal terms of art ARE what i am discussing. it's the terms in which i think.

I don't think "tar and feathers" is uncalled for at all. That is just one of the several painful, unpleasant and totally justifiable things I personally would like to do to this poor excuse for a human being. Are you catching that tone, spot? If not, let me spell it out...

Micheal Jackson is a sick, depraved, pedophile who probably bought his way out of this trial. Lots of people hate him, me being one of them. Because a jury found him "not guilty" does nothing to change my opinion of him, or my belief that he has sex with little boys.

The rest is just semantics, and I'll leave that argument to you and Paul. Enjoy!

BR your wishy-washy reticence is really annoying. :wah:

The little counter with the hash sign went down, that's all. I don't know how to do that.

How can anyone unversed in the meaning of your legal terms of art discuss issues like this with you, Lady, if they haven't the degree of training you've had? It would be so much less demanding if you used plain English instead, the way the rest of us are obliged to by reason of ignorance. If you use a legal term of art, and we are unaware of its inference, we can scarcely hope to pass relevant comment on your remarks.

lady cop wrote: BR your wishy-washy reticence is really annoying. :wah: I know...I really need to just say what I think and stick to that, don't I? I'll try, LC, really I will. :yh_bigsmi

i don't use plain english? i would like to think i respecfully discuss things without being "demanding" or patronizing. i have a unique place here, people like to ask about legal/criminal issues, and that is the sole reason i am here.

spot wrote: You have no idea how much that disturbs me, Lady, because I refuse to fight with you. I've made all the points I intended to make. Descending to personal abuse is surely uncalled for.

Either the points I've made have been both reasonable and accurate, or they haven't. I have my opinion about that. I find the sticking of mud to anyone's reputation, after a jury in possession of far more evidence has made a unanimous decision in the setting of a law court, distasteful, though it would seem people can indulge themselves that way without penalty if it excites them to. Comments on Mr Jackson's wisdom are one thing, but calling the verdict unbelievable is quite another.


This is where all disagreement begins. We were just expressing opinions about a freakin strange person. No fight. Nothing gained and nothing lost.

Hey Capt. Buzz - want to chime in here?

Where is the fight?!!!!!

lady cop wrote: i don't use plain english? i would like to think i respecfully discuss things without being "demanding" or patronizing. i have a unique place here, people like to ask about legal/criminal issues, and that is the sole reason i am here. Then what place do unexplained and unflagged "legal terms of art" have in your posts? I, for one, still don't know which of your expressions in this thread carry a meaning that differs from the normal dictionary definition I would understand.

spot wrote: Then what place do unexplained and unflagged "legal terms of art" have in your posts? simply by way of explanation.

lady cop wrote: simply by way of explanation. I, for one, still don't know which of your expressions in this thread carry a meaning that differs from the normal dictionary definition I would understand.

Spot, do you make this a habit, jumping into posts and arguing semantics? You've hijacked this thread and turned it into an argument about phrases that LC is using, that no one else is having trouble following. Give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a term or expression that she has used that you don't understand, maybe I can explain it for you.

BabyRider, my problem - I thought I'd been quite clear about it - is that I have no idea which terms or expressions Lady Cop has used that I don't understand.

She says "as to legal terms of art here, i taught criminal law at our academy, so PERHAPS i have a small clue whereof i speak. there ARE differences between those concepts under the law." Legal terms of art are expressions in a legal context which may have different meanings from a definition one would find in a standard dictionary.

Now, if I'm not trained in the law, not having taught criminal law at an academy, I have no idea what expressions Lady Cop has used in this thread are legal terms of art. I know she's used some because she's said she has. Wherever I've read them, I've understood them ignorantly to mean what the dictionary would say they mean. Lady Cop tells me that they have specialized meanings in law that differ from plain English, in that they are legal terms of art.

So, no specific example, but at least you now see why I can't give you one.

And no, I don't make a habit of jumping into posts, I just post like the rest of us do.

Money talks; pedophiles walk.

spot wrote: BabyRider, my problem - I thought I'd been quite clear about it - is that I have no idea which terms or expressions Lady Cop has used that I don't understand.



She says "as to legal terms of art here, i taught criminal law at our academy, so PERHAPS i have a small clue whereof i speak. there ARE differences between those concepts under the law." Legal terms of art are expressions in a legal context which may have different meanings from a definition one would find in a standard dictionary.



Now, if I'm not trained in the law, not having taught criminal law at an academy, I have no idea what expressions Lady Cop has used in this thread are legal terms of art. I know she's used some because she's said she has. Wherever I've read them, I've understood them ignorantly to mean what the dictionary would say they mean. Lady Cop tells me that they have specialized meanings in law that differ from plain English, in that they are legal terms of art.



So, no specific example, but at least you now see why I can't give you one.



And no, I don't make a habit of jumping into posts, I just post like the rest of us do.Ah. Now I've got it. She uses "cop jargon" and so that's what you have chosen, in this specific thread to pick on. Gotcha. You've hijacked quite effectively. Now....back to the ACTUAL topic!!!



Money talks, pedophiles walkPeg, could not agree more.

"innocent" as oppused to "acquitted" not a difficult concept. ... every profession has its own argot. Spot i have rarely had a thread you didn't hijack with some semantics baloney. it's my own fault for getting sucked in. EVERYBODY ELSE GOT IT. and yes, back on topic would be nice.

BabyRider wrote: She uses "cop jargon"No, I don't think you can call legal terms of art "cop jargon". Cop jargon surely can't be mistaken for normal speech. Legal terms of art are famously confusing for members of the general public, that's why lawyers warn us that they exist.

bit late back here, had a rare outage of my net connection.



spot wrote: Let me try one more time. Not that I expect anything but antagonism from you, since you've said before that's all I'll get from you.



"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is an abuse of both language and logic in that "actually innocent" has nothing to do with the acquittal. Butting the two concepts together as though they were related is the abuse of logic. Making it look like a statement in logic, while comparing unrelated facts, is not what language is for. It's muddying, not clarifying.



For further discussion of "actually innocent" vis a vis "presumed innocent", see above, passim.it is a statement of logic - in reply to and as correction of an erroneous statement. to wit:









clint wrote:Sounds like he is innocent of the charges. followed, in the very next post, by ladycop's correction of that statement:







an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven

"an acquittal does not mean actually innocent" is factually correct. an acquittal is a finding of "not guilty", not a finding of "innocent". your focus on 'presumed innocent' is irrelevant. if we were to expand the syllogism using presumed innocent it becomes almost farcical:



"an acquittal is a finding of 'not guilty', not a finding of 'presumed innocent'". you don't have a finding in a matter of jurisprudence of 'presumption'. you either find guilt, or do not find guilt. a presumption of innocence *precedes* the judgement of the court. the person does not remain "presumed innocent" after the finding. if they are found not guilty, there is no presumption that may further obtain. *you* are mixing the legal principles here. there is no stipulation after a court finding that one is 'presumed innocent', regardless of the outcome.



now then. to the word in question. because i'm trying to find out the basis for your contention that there is an abuse of language and logic at work here, rather than 'plant' a meaning, i'll ask.





in the following statement:an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven what do you believe "it" refers to? specifically, please.

anastrophe wrote: specifically, please.HA!!! Good luck there!!! :yh_doh

anastrophe wrote: in the following statement:an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven what do you believe "it" refers to? specifically, please.Do tell me if I've trimmed too much.

Each of the charges individually, taken as a whole (hence "it" instead of "them").

anastrophe wrote: bit late back here, had a rare outage of my net connection.



it is a statement of logic - in reply to and as correction of an erroneous statement. to wit:













clint wrote:Sounds like he is innocent of the charges. followed, in the very next post, by ladycop's correction of that statement:











an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven

"an acquittal does not mean actually innocent" is factually correct. an acquittal is a finding of "not guilty", not a finding of "innocent". your focus on 'presumed innocent' is irrelevant. if we were to expand the syllogism using presumed innocent it becomes almost farcical:



"an acquittal is a finding of 'not guilty', not a finding of 'presumed innocent'. you don't have a finding in a matter of jurisprudence of 'presumption'. you either find guilt, or do not find guilt. a presumption of innocence *precedes* the judgement of the court. the person does not remain "presumed innocent" after the finding. if they are found not guilty, there is no presumption that may further obtain. *you* are mixing the legal principles here. there is no stipulation after a court finding that one is 'presumed innocent', regardless of the outcome.



now then. to the word in question. because i'm trying to find out the basis for your contention that there is an abuse of language and logic at work here, rather than 'plant' a meaning, i'll ask.













in the following statement:an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven what do you believe "it" refers to? specifically, please.This is why I requested forumgarden to include "ALL" quotes in a reply so you do not have to piece them together and get mush! As above

:-5 SPOT, I have to give you credit for one thing, you can pick a post apart better than anyone I know. You have a real knack for never letting any thing die.

OK I think MJ is guilty, the freak will be back again, and again. I hope if nothing else they close down NEVERLAND RANCH and never let children there again. He is the worst kind of CHILD MOLESTOR he has money, and money talks.

If it were John Q citizen that had these charges against him, he would never see the light of day again. :-5

The Jury found MJ not guilty on 10 counts. There was reasonable doubt in there minds, the prosecution didn't prove their case it's that simple.

I hope this at least damages his image in the public eye, he is a lost soul, who is a little left of center, and mentally ill. THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT, AND I'M STICKING TO IT.

CARLA wrote: he is a lost soul, who is a little left of center, and mentally ill.I hadn't considered the possibility that he's being persecuted by right-wing prosecutors for his political beliefs, Carla. You really think his political stance influenced the bringing of this prosecution? I do hope you're wrong. Show trials haven't happened in the USA for at least the last thirty years, going back to them would be very sad.

spot wrote: I hadn't considered the possibility that he's being persecuted by right-wing prosecutors for his political beliefs, Carla. You really think his political stance influenced the bringing of this prosecution? I do hope you're wrong. Show trials haven't happened in the USA for at least the last thirty years, going back to them would be very sad.are you being deliberately obtuse? it is clear Carla was referring to his mental status, not his politics.

lady cop wrote: are you being deliberately obtuse? it is clear Carla was referring to his mental status, not his politics. Can "a little left of center" refer to a mental status, and not a political position? I do apologise, I stand corrected. Perhaps it's another legal term of art?