"Baby Trump" Balloon stabbed and deflated at Alabama event

[fantome profane]

Yep, seriously. I know of at least two women who killed their abusive husband and boyfriend while the men slept. Their counsels cobbled together a self defense plea, that the juries bought, they are totally free today.

The law doesn´t see technicalities, it just sees the law. If it is not properly applied, to protect the accused, and the court finds it egregious, the suspect walks, or so much evidence is found inadmissable, the suspect walks.

Legally none of the people in the examples are criminals. They have not been convicted by a jury of their peers of a crime.

Legally, OJ Simpson is not a criminal, though I know he is. I followed the trial, but more especially the evidence, and there is no doubt. Yet, a jury of his peers acquitted him. I won a bet from a colleague who said the evidence was so overwhelming he could never get off. I said he would walk.

So, the mop flops, and people with no criminal records, that, from our observations are criminals, walk freely among us.

Call one a criminal, or say so in print, could get you hauled into court for libel or slander.

In the final analysis, the law determines who is a criminal, not our feelings or opinions.

Yes, but the key word here is “legally”. But it does not change “reality”.

Consider a situation where it works the other way. If I am charge with a crime, let’s say vandalism. And I did not do it. My innocence is a reality. But let’s say I plead guilty to get a lesser sentence (happen all the time in the criminal system). From the moment my plea is accepted by a court I am legally guilty. But reality does not change. I did not do it. Sometimes what is legally true and what is actually true are not the same.

In reality the person who actually committed the act of vandalism that I plead guilty to is guilty, and was guilty from the moment they broke that window. That is reality even if a court of law never recognizes that fact.

 

[dianaiad]

So you'll agree that Hitler and Stalin were innocent, having never been convicted in a USA court??
Seriously?
Tom

Well now, that's one of the fastest applications of Godwin's Law I've seen in awhile.

 

[dianaiad]

There has to be a word for the philosophy being proposed here. I wanted to call it “legalism”, but that term has a slightly different definition.

I propose the term “legaltism”. “Legaltism” is the idea that reality is not reality unless it is substantiated by a court of law. An example of legaltism would be that OJ did not murder his ex wife because the jury found him not guilty.

But in reality she is still dead, and OJ did kill her.

Good grief. Hitler, Stalin and OJ?

who are you people going to bring up next, Mao and Pope Innocent II?

 

[columbus]

Well now, that's one of the fastest applications of Godwin's Law I've seen in awhile.

So you do.
Got it.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

Yes, but the key word here is “legally”. But it does not change “reality”.

Consider a situation where it works the other way. If I am charge with a crime, let’s say vandalism. And I did not do it. My innocence is a reality. But let’s say I plead guilty to get a lesser sentence (happen all the time in the criminal system). From the moment my plea is accepted by a court I am legally guilty. But reality does not change. I did not do it. Sometimes what is legally true and what is actually true are not the same.

In reality the person who actually committed the act of vandalism that I plead guilty to is guilty, and was guilty from the moment they broke that window. That is reality even if a court of law never recognizes that fact.

Interesting, but in our society the law determines the reality. Only in a court of law is the evidence tested, the facts clearly established and a verdict rendered. Who knows the reality ? In your example, you and the true miscreant. Society has a vested interest in determining as far as possible what the reality is, that is the purpose of the law.

It is an imperfect system, but the best we have.

 

[fantome profane]

Interesting, but in our society the law determines the reality.

No, no no no no! This is nonsense.

If you saw my previous post you know I am trying to coin the word “Legaltism” for just this bizarre notion that reality is determined by a court of law.

Courts determine legal status, nothing more. Courts of law do not have any magical godlike power to bend reality to their decree.

If I stab someone in the heart, I am a murderer. If a court finds me not guilty, the person I killed does not come back to life. History does not rewrite itself to place the knife in someone else’s hand. I am a murderer the instant the knife enters the other person’s chest. Courts cannot alter that reality. The court determines legal status, not reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Interesting, but in our society the law determines the reality.

Ooh, that's a very authoritarian position to take there, Shmogie.

 

[Stevicus]

No, no no no no! This is nonsense.

If you saw my previous post you know I am trying to coin the word “Legaltism” for just this bizarre notion that reality is determined by a court of law.

Courts determine legal status, nothing more. Courts of law do not have any magical godlike power to bend reality to their decree.

If I stab someone in the heart, I am a murderer. If a court finds me not guilty, the person I killed does not come back to life. History does not rewrite itself to place the knife in someone else’s hand. I am a murderer the instant the knife enters the other person’s chest. Courts cannot alter that reality. The court determines legal status, not reality.

"Legaltism"?

Courts may sometimes try to bend reality, such as the usage of the Exclusionary Rule, which seems Orwellian on its face.

"Reality" is whatever is definitely known and can be proven to exist. This is just as true in a court of law as it is for the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[shmogie]

No, no no no no! This is nonsense.

If you saw my previous post you know I am trying to coin the word “Legaltism” for just this bizarre notion that reality is determined by a court of law.

Courts determine legal status, nothing more. Courts of law do not have any magical godlike power to bend reality to their decree.

If I stab someone in the heart, I am a murderer. If a court finds me not guilty, the person I killed does not come back to life. History does not rewrite itself to place the knife in someone else’s hand. I am a murderer the instant the knife enters the other person’s chest. Courts cannot alter that reality. The court determines legal status, not reality.

The reality of criminal acts can only be determined by a court of law. You could stab someone in self defense, accidentally, as an act of manslaughter, second degree murder or first degree murder.

Sure, you stabbed someone, that is the realty, yet it is not the reality for society. Society has a vested interest determining the reality of why and how you stabbed someone. In the end, the answers are the true reality of your stabbing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The reality of criminal acts can only be determined by a court of law. You could stab someone in self defense, accidentally, as an act of manslaughter, second degree murder or first degree murder.

Sure, you stabbed someone, that is the realty, yet it is not the reality for society. Society has a vested interest determining the reality of why and how you stabbed someone. In the end, the answers are the true reality of your stabbing.

You seem to be confusing investigating reality with determining reality.

Law doesn't DETERMINE reality, it only INVESTIGATES it.

 

[shmogie]

Ooh, that's a very authoritarian position to take there, Shmogie.

When it comes to crimes, how else will you determine the reality of what occurred except by measuring them by the law ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When it comes to crimes, how else will you determine the reality of what occurred except by measuring them by the law ?

Again, "determining" reality is different to "investigating" reality. Courts do the latter, not the former.

A court cannot "determine" what actually happened in the sense that they have no role in DECIDING the reality of the event (I.E: an innocent man wrongly convicted of theft didn't actually commit a crime just because a court "determined" they were guilty).

If this were the case, re-trials and appeals simply wouldn't be a thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reality of criminal acts can only be determined by a court of law. You could stab someone in self defense, accidentally, as an act of manslaughter, second degree murder or first degree murder.

Sure, you stabbed someone, that is the realty, yet it is not the reality for society. Society has a vested interest determining the reality of why and how you stabbed someone. In the end, the answers are the true reality of your stabbing.

How strange a world it must be for you where you've denied yourself the right to have an opinion on reality until a criminal court tells you what to think.

 

[shmogie]

You seem to be confusing investigating reality with determining reality.

Law doesn't DETERMINE reality, it only INVESTIGATES it.

Nope, not true.

When it comes to crime, only the law can establish the ultimate reality of what took place. As applied to the alleged criminal, only courts can determine the reality of innocence or guilt, the reality of punishment and to what degree, the reality of one being a real criminal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, not true.

When it comes to crime, only the law can establish the ultimate reality of what took place. As applied to the alleged criminal, only courts can determine the reality of innocence or guilt, the reality of punishment and to what degree, the reality of one being a real criminal.

This is not true.

Again, if it were, appeals courts and re-trials would not be a thing. Courts determine guilt, but they do not determine the REALITY of a crime. They cannot warp reality so that you actually COMMITTED a crime that you have wrongly been convicted of - they can only find you guilty of the crime, but there will always be enough room for error in that verdict that it can never truly be said to be the reality that you actually DID the crime.

Incidentally, you are also wrong about courts determining innocence. Courts determine "guilty" or "not guilty", not "guilty" or "innocent". Courts are set up to determine guilt, not innocence.

To put it simply, courts can determine that you are guilty of a crime.
But they cannot determine that you actually did the crime.

Again, I feel like you're confusing the word "determine" for "investigate".

 

[shmogie]

How strange a world it must be for you where you've denied yourself the right to have an opinion on reality until a criminal court tells you what to think.

Opinions are not reality, they are a particular subjective personal perspective. We all have opinions.

When it comes to criminal acts, we base our opinions without knowledge of all the evidence, without the evidence we do know being tested.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Opinions are not reality, they are a particular subjective personal perspective. We all have opinions.

When it comes to criminal acts, we base our opinions without knowledge of all the evidence, without the evidence we do know being tested.

Right - but the opinions formed as a result of said evidence can still be wrong. Ergo, while courts examine evidence and determine guilt, they do not determine reality. Reality is reality, regardless of what conclusions we reach about it.

 

[Ouroboros]

The scary thing is that he could have mistakenly stabbed the wrong one. Even I admit I have trouble telling the real Trump from the balloon.

I know! Right!

The only way to tell the difference is that the real Trump's hair looks fake. Other than that...

 

[columbus]

Breaking the law only makes one a criminal if one is convicted of breaking the law.

Interesting, but in our society the law determines the reality.

This sounds altogether like partisan claptrap.

If someone knowingly commits a crime they're a criminal, that's the reality. Courts determine only whether or not they're a convicted criminal, which is something else.
Trump is not a convicted criminal, yet. That's the reality. That doesn't make him innocent. And frankly, I don't recall either of you correcting anybody who described Hillary Clinton as a criminal. This despite the fact that she's been heavily investigated and never convicted.
Extremely partisan people seem to have wildly different standards for different politicians.
Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

When it comes to crimes, how else will you determine the reality of what occurred except by measuring them by the law ?

I have to get into this discussion too... it looks like too much fun!

Anyway, I can totally see where you're coming from. Criminal in the sense of convicted is a legal term, and calling someone criminal outside of the court of law can be iffy since it's an accusation. However, it is used outside of court in daily speech, we have terms like "career criminal" which doesn't necessarily means someone who made a career of getting caught and convicted of crimes, or "criminal mindset" which talks about people who ponders how to do crimes without spending time thinking about how to get convicted in court. Just sayin'. There's two used of the word. One legal, one colloquial.