Guilty - even when innocent!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
... it's a list of times ive put my point of view across on the issue at the heart of the thread in direct reply to phils statement where he's supposedly not seen me do exactly that.

Perhaps you could have led the epic quote fest with that.
 
Yes it is actually, it's a list of times ive put my point of view across on the issue at the heart of the thread in direct reply to phils statement where he's supposedly not seen me do exactly that.

I think you should have a good nights sleep and read them again.

You’ve consistently failed to do what you believe you’ve done.
 
No...

And I said that being guilty is a matter of fact, being found guilty is what the courts are for.

He's talking about the courts. Now who's using semantics?

I think you should have a good nights sleep and read them again.

You’ve consistently failed to do what you believe you’ve done.

I think you've constantly failed / refused to see any other point other than your own actually.
 
Guilt or innocence isn’t a point of opinion, it’s a matter of fact, the perpetrator of a crime is guilty whether the crime gets reported, whether there’s charges or verdicts. It’s not up for debate unless you’re of the opinion that there’s no such thing as ‘reality’

The legal process can only attempt to ascertain from evidence, but it can be wrong, and often is.

Guilt is a point of opinion that's why we have jurys. It is far from a fact.

One can only establish that someone has perpetrated a crime (not that a crime has been committed) after a trial or unless he pleads guilty, only then has he perpetrated the crime.

Offences are committed all the time and no one is brought before the courts for them.That does not mean that they don't happen. But what is does mean is that some ones guilt about that crime has not been established.

This is about guilt not offeneces being committed. Offence are committed all the time and people are found not guilty of them.

That does not mean the offence did not happen it just means that the accussed was not guilty of it.

Guilt means to feel bad about what they did.

They have the option to plead guilty or not guilty.

All offences ar allegations untill proven. Though I have to say Phil you will take some convincing.

Not guilty means not guilty.

Unless the courts find otherwise that's it.

I don't want you on my jury.
 
Guilt is a point of opinion that's why we have jurys. It is far from a fact.

Absolutely not.

Guilt is as I’ve pointed out is a matter of fact.

I have been involved in my youth in Street fights, so I am guilty of affray. I have never been charged or arrested, so there is no court decision to find me guilty.

That does not make me not guilty, that’s a complete nonsense.

You can keep repeating this, but it won’t make it true.

From the dictionary:
having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially againstmoral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable
 
Last edited:
I guess I’m old, innocent people suffer all the time, do I accept that? Yes, how else would I sleep at night.

Every day innocent children and innocent adults are abused by people who should be there to protect them, as a civilised society we have to try to protect them. The cost of doing so might mean that some people don’t get a job they’d like.

On a cost/benefit analysis, I can live with that.
You sound like you are worying too much about things and as a result are thinking things are worse than they are.

Remember this guy was found not guilty. Why worry about people who have been found not guilty.
 
You sound like you are worying too much about things and as a result are thinking things are worse than they are.

Remember this guy was found not guilty. Why worry about people who have been found not guilty.
I’m really not, I’m quite chilled, I’m not getting my knickers in a twist about one bloke not getting one job*
And I understand what the bloody hell our courts do, and it’s perfectly obvious you haven’t got the faintest clue.

*its not uncommon to have 20 applicants for a vacancy, from where 3-5 will be interviewed and one will be successful. We’ve got 250posts on a discussion about one unsuccessful candidate ;)
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not.

Guilt is as I’ve pointed out is a matter of fact.

I have been involved in my youth in Street fights, so I am guilty of affray. I have never been charged or arrested, so there is no court decision to find me guilty.

That does not make me not guilty, that’s a complete nonsense.

You can keep repeating this, but it won’t make it true.

From the dictionary:
having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially againstmoral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable

When you had the street fight if you knew you where doing wrong then you were guilty.

If you were not doing wrong then you were not guilty.

In the case of a fight there is an actus reus that is the physical act of fighting that does not establish guilt. In order for there to be an offence committed there has to be a guilty mind a mens rea.

So in your fight if you were defending yourself there is no guilty mind and no offence.

However who says you are guilty or not guilty? who knows why you were striking out?

You do and only you do so as far as you are concerned you know your guilt or innocence only you.

So a policeman comes along and unlike you he does not believe that just because an act of fighting has happened (actus reus) you are guilty of an offence.

He speaks to you but again unlike you he is unable to decide on your guilt because he does not know what goes on in your mind.

So what he decides to do is put the matter before independant people to decide in a court and leave it to them to decide on your guilt or innocence.

So you turn up at court and you are then asked are you guilty of this offence and you can either plead guilty or not.

The reason you are asked is because unlike you the court realises that guilt is not a fact (it may be that and actus reus occured but that is not guilt).

So you plead guilty and are convicted. You were guilty that's it.

You plead not guilty and are found guilty that's it. You were guilty.

You plead not guilty and are found not guilty. You were not guilty.

That's the law of the land. That's how it is.

There are no special people who have special powers to say who it guilty of an offence.
 
I’m really not, I’m quite chilled, I’m not getting my knickers in a twist about one bloke not getting one job*
And I understand what the bloody hell our courts do, and it’s perfectly obvious you haven’t got the faintest clue.

*its not uncommon to have 20 applicants for a vacancy, from where 3-5 will be interviewed and one will be successful. We’ve got 250posts on a discussion about one unsuccessful candidate ;)
For me it's not the one job Phil. It's the principle and precident it sets.

Remember he was found not guilty and it was the police who disclosed the information. I agree with the police disclosing convictions but they should not be in a position to disclose aquitals on cases that they themselves have prosecuted. Conflict of interests or what!

One has to draw the line somewhere.
 
I’m sure you’re a genuinely nice guy @shapeshifter and you mean well and all.

But surely when you rely on ignoring the dictionary definition of a word and creating your own interpretation to support your argument, that is the absolute textbook definition of pigeon chess.
 
Last edited:
For me it's not the one job Phil. It's the principle and precident it sets.

Remember he was found not guilty and it was the police who disclosed the information. I agree with the police disclosing convictions but they should not be in a position to disclose aquitals on cases that they themselves have prosecuted. Conflict of interests or what!

One has to draw the line somewhere.
Pigeon chess:

When we give examples of other cases, the outraged say ‘it’s not about other cases, this poor blokes life is ruined’, and when we say ‘the specifics of this case are...’ you say ‘it’s not about this case, it sets a precedent’.

Make your mind up :)
 
Last edited:
For me it's not the one job Phil. It's the principle and precident it sets.

Remember he was found not guilty and it was the police who disclosed the information. I agree with the police disclosing convictions but they should not be in a position to disclose aquitals on cases that they themselves have prosecuted. Conflict of interests or what!

One has to draw the line somewhere.
The police don't prosecute cases and haven't done so for many years, so no possible conflict of interest there.
 
:sleep::sleep::sleep: Just googled pigeon chess as it seems your favourite term of the week, you can't even get that right :-/
Well as you’re currently unable to understand your own posts, let alone anyone else’s, I’m not surprised you had to google a common term and now you don’t understand it.
It’s also good practice to ‘reply’ or to tag people you’re aiming your posts at, otherwise they don’t get notified.

Meanwhile; exactly what is your point here?
 
I guess I’m old, innocent people suffer all the time, do I accept that? Yes, how else would I sleep at night.

Every day innocent children and innocent adults are abused by people who should be there to protect them, as a civilised society we have to try to protect them. The cost of doing so might mean that some people don’t get a job they’d like.

On a cost/benefit analysis, I can live with that.

How do you measure the cost benefit analysis? Do you know how many people will not be abused now because people like that cant do that job now? Why stop there? If that person is a risk, maybe they should be locked up to stop them abusing their kids friends?

Additionally, if you want to protect people do you support say people who have been convicted of these type of crimes being locked up forever? We know that some will re-offend on release so why not keep them banged up?
 
How do you measure the cost benefit analysis? Do you know how many people will not be abused now because people like that cant do that job now? Why stop there? If that person is a risk, maybe they should be locked up to stop them abusing their kids friends?

Additionally, if you want to protect people do you support say people who have been convicted of these type of crimes being locked up forever? We know that some will re-offend on release so why not keep them banged up?
Obviously it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to do an accurate cost benefit analysis, but equally obviously, there must be worthwhile benefits arising from taking reasonable precautions to minimise risk from known or suspected offenders, which is the situation that I'm defending.
As for how long offenders should be locked up for, that's easy - as long as the courts, and later the parole board, decide. They are the ones with both the expertise and the information.
 
How do you measure the cost benefit analysis? Do you know how many people will not be abused now because people like that cant do that job now? Why stop there? If that person is a risk, maybe they should be locked up to stop them abusing their kids friends?

Additionally, if you want to protect people do you support say people who have been convicted of these type of crimes being locked up forever? We know that some will re-offend on release so why not keep them banged up?

I think you're perhaps stretching a point beyond breaking point.
 
How do you measure the cost benefit analysis? Do you know how many people will not be abused now because people like that cant do that job now? Why stop there? If that person is a risk, maybe they should be locked up to stop them abusing their kids friends?

Additionally, if you want to protect people do you support say people who have been convicted of these type of crimes being locked up forever? We know that some will re-offend on release so why not keep them banged up?

Do you have a serious point?

How many innocent children are you happy to see raped to stop this situation ever happening again?

Would you be happy if they were your children? After all this poor bloke didn't get a job, how many child rapes is that worth?
 
Well as you’re currently unable to understand your own posts, let alone anyone else’s, I’m not surprised you had to google a common term and now you don’t understand it.
It’s also good practice to ‘reply’ or to tag people you’re aiming your posts at, otherwise they don’t get notified.

Meanwhile; exactly what is your point here?

LOL, good one.

Pigeon chess:
"Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory."

46bz49t.jpg
 
LOL, good one.

Pigeon chess:
"Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory."
That’s exactly what I’m seeing here.

Down to the fact your mate decided that a simple English word has an alternative meaning in order to support his argument.

And you agreeing with him.

GUILTY it’s a simple concept, and doesn’t require a court to decide. But carry on making yourself look ridiculous :p
 
Im sure its what you are seeing if youre looking in a mirror, thats for sure.

You keep on droning on about someone feeling guilty to muddy the waters surrounding being found guilty in a court of law, and you keep thinking somehow this will make you look right. Here's a shocker for you...it doesn't.

As for looking ridiculous? Remember that mirror I mentioned a minute ago.......:p:p
 
...
You keep on droning on about someone feeling guilty to muddy the waters surrounding being found guilty in a court of law, and you keep thinking somehow this will make you look right. ...

I really would like you to post a quote of where I mentioned someone feeling guilty.

Your comprehension skills are really the worst I have experienced on here.

The thing about quoting the people you’re arguing with is that it gives you a chance to re-read and comprehend what they’ve posted, so you can make sure your reply makes sense.

If you just keep responding to what you think was posted, you end up looking a bit silly.
 
Like I said...p***ing contest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top