- Member for
- 1 year 48 weeks
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Govt vs. Blogfan burden of proof||
As a blogger, we don't need to support our judgments with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The big distinction between the two sides of the argument is what burden of proof the government needs to find the player guilty/punish a player versus what burden a blogger(anyone besides the government) needs.
As we all know, the Constitution requires close to certainty (reasonable doubt) to support a criminal conviction, in this case DUI. So, the AA prosecutor probably needs "all of the facts" and needs to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to take away a person's right via whatever means they punish a drunk driver.
As an average person making a judgment, like all other judgments we must make in carrying out our lives, we don't need to support our judgments with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have toinvite your brother's friend Jim over your house anymore if you think he cheats and steals; Jim can't whine that you do not all the facts and 99% certainty to support a cheating allegation. This extends to people like Hoke: maybe his standard for disciplining players is a preponderance of evidence (51% certainty) or clear and convincing evidence.
For a blogger, a .12 BAC is probably good enough proof a problem to make an informed judgment. For the State, 98% certainty is not good enough. I have seen a few examples of this at trial where the highway patrolman admits he did not calibrate his device twice. Ooops. Without double calibration, the State cannot convict despite a pretty good idea that the device only fails 1 in 1 million times.
Moreover, using pre-robbery OJ for example, nobody would call you out for stating that OJ was a criminal based on the criminal jury's failure to convict. You could make your own judgment of the guy based on the facts that you do know because you are not the State. You just can't throw him in jail for your conclusion.
In Fitz's case, what if the arresting officer failed to calibrate the breathtest 2x and Fitz got off? Would we rather say, "See, he was not guilty all along, you shouldn't rush to judge when you don't know all the facts." Or would we rather realize there probably was an underlying problem, drinking and driving, and someone in the athletic dept. should intervene even though DUI cannot be proven to 99% certainty.
|1 year 48 weeks ago||Most Best||
I would agree, if we don't say "Most Best" is it okay to say "Most Winningest"?
|1 year 48 weeks ago||haha feminists||
Yeah, screw those feminists. What's up with corporate giants like the NFL trying to appease the politically correct and the progressives with equal opportunity for women. The idea that women should get equal opporunities as men is just DUMB.