LogFAQs > #892030210

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	16 of Trump's Accusers Demand Congressional Investigation
Smarkil 12/11/17 6:29:32 PM #26:	SushiSquid posted... 1) An admission of guilt in a related crime or immoral activity is evidence. 2) Witness testimony is evidence. Except it's not related to a crime yet. You have to have evidence that a crime was committed first before witness testimony becomes relevant. It's corroborating evidence to the guilt of the person after there is proof a crime has been committed. If you went up to a cop and told them that I shit in your mouth, do you think they would arrest me and put me on trial based on that admission alone? Or do you think they'd ask you to show them the fecal matter in your teeth before they put me in handcuffs? He has to be charged with something dude. SushiSquid posted... It can be, but it's also used in the vast majority of cases as evidence, and in some cases the decision is mostly based on witness testimony. The only time in which a witness testimony is the deciding factor in a case is when the witness can be deemed to be credible. There are a lot of things that go into determining whether or not someone is a credible witness - being a woman and having reason to hate Donald Trump is not one of them. And again, these accusations range from 15-40 years ago. So we have no proof a crime was committed and the only evidence we have thus far is a witness testimony from people who hate the guy. What are we supposed to do with this? SushiSquid posted... I can't stress this enough: witness testimony is court-admissible evidence. Especially if these women go before the Senate or a court (and thus are sworn to be truthful), it becomes quite serious evidence. Of course it's admissible. I didn't say it wasn't. It just isn't proof that a crime was committed. Why do you think so many rapists go free? Unless the woman had a rape kit completed after the act, it's extremely difficult to prove that the crime ever even happened. They need proof of bruising, physical evidence, etc. before they can put someone in jail. And let's be real, people lie before the court ALL the time. They know it. I know it. Moltar know it. We all know it. --- "We're not even close" - Romans building Rome at the end of Day 1 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:892030210] in 16 of Trum... [t:76087027]...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>1) An admission of guilt in a related crime or immoral activity is evidence. 2) Witness testimony is evidence. </quote> Except it's not related to a crime yet. You have to have evidence that a crime was committed first before witness testimony becomes relevant. It's corroborating evidence to the guilt of the person after there is proof a crime has been committed. If you went up to a cop and told them that I shit in your mouth, do you think they would arrest me and put me on trial based on that admission alone? Or do you think they'd ask you to show them the fecal matter in your teeth before they put me in handcuffs? He has to be charged with something dude. <cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>It can be, but it's also used in the vast majority of cases as evidence, and in some cases the decision is mostly based on witness testimony. </quote> The only time in which a witness testimony is the deciding factor in a case is when the witness can be deemed to be credible. There are a lot of things that go into determining whether or not someone is a credible witness - being a woman and having reason to hate Donald Trump is not one of them. And again, these accusations range from 15-40 years ago. So we have no proof a crime was committed and the only evidence we have thus far is a witness testimony from people who hate the guy. What are we supposed to do with this? <cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>I can't stress this enough: witness testimony is court-admissible evidence. Especially if these women go before the Senate or a court (and thus are sworn to be truthful), it becomes quite serious evidence. </quote> Of course it's admissible. I didn't say it wasn't. It just isn't proof that a crime was committed. Why do you think so many rapists go free? Unless the woman had a rape kit completed after the act, it's extremely difficult to prove that the crime ever even happened. They need proof of bruising, physical evidence, etc. before they can put someone in jail. And let's be real, people lie before the court ALL the time. They know it. I know it. Moltar know it. We all know it. --- "We're not even close" - Romans building Rome at the end of Day 1</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1