• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Witch Hunts, Court of Public Opinion, and Defending the Indefensible.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I often get the question “How can you defend the indefensible,” or in other words “How can you defend an ‘obviously’ guilty person?” But that question assumes that allegations of guilt are automatically true, and a Defense Attorney is always trying to prove someone is innocent.

In our society we have a legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty in criminal cases, and it is the job of the State through a Prosecutor to prove guilt. The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As a result, the Prosecution will attempt to build a case using available evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused in fact committed the crime.

On the other hand, the job of a Defense Attorney is not to “defend the indefensible” by trying to prove someone is innocent; that presumption already exits. Of course if there is exculpatory evidence, that helps the Defense's case. But more often than not the job is to address the prosecution’s evidence wherever possible so as to show alternative explanations/scenarios which create reasonable doubt.

One of the biggest problems facing the Defense occurs when news media report the crime in a sensational way. This is typical of those crimes considered most heinous; like alleged sex offenses, alleged murders and other violent crimes, and alleged “hate crimes” of whatever stripe. News media seek out “angles” of reporting to get the most views. Views sell advertising which pays the bills.

People being people, they love gossip. The more lurid the report the more likely to establish a belief in the guilt of the accused. The more public the story, the more likely members of the jury pool may be tainted. However there are tools officers of the Court can use to try to deal with this problem.

Not so in the Court of Public Opinion, especially when it comes to politics. People’s political bias automatically comes into play. If one is already pre-disposed against the target of media reporting, then it is easier to motivate and maintain animus against that target. There is an acceptance that the target is guilty until proven innocent. Even worse this animus can be increased and perpetuated by reports of target's alleged ongoing evils. Thus the media feeds the bias, the readers continue to come back seeking more confirmation of said bias...and viola!! The cycle of Witch-hunting occurs.

I oppose this cycle on principal. I am on record in this Forum arguing that the public should be skeptical of reports based on either anonymous or politically biased sources when they make allegations of wrong-doing.

When I argue in this Forum in defense of public figures being lambasted in the news and by politicians and pundits for alleged wrongs, it is based on the above rationale. Innocent until proven guilty. This is especially true when I see what is clearly a witch hunt targeting someone for political reasons. Where advocates of presumed guilt use all the tactics of moral panic to demonize both the target and anyone who seeks to defend said target.

It is not that the target has been shown to be factually innocent. No, what remains to be proven is actual guilt. That accusations are merely assertions and not in and of themselves proof of guilt. That everyone should be cautious and watch developments. Wait for a factual ruling of guilt, as opposed to presuming guilt and thereby shifting the burden onto the accused to prove innocence.

One need only consider it in a way I was taught to a long time ago. If YOU were the target, wouldn’t YOU hope to have that benefit of the doubt, and expect the accuser to PROVE your guilt?

I do not support witch-hunts, as historically they are fear-based, uncontrollable, and often turn on some who were originally accusers (ex. #METOO). Thus you will almost always see me arguing “aspirationally” for innocence until proven guilty, even in the Court of Public Opinion. It should therefore come as no surprise that I will provide "alternative scenarios" seeking to create "reasonable doubt," right up unless and until the accused is proven guilty of the alleged misconduct.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,267
Reaction score
28,257
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Funny thing is....

I am an appellate attorney who takes appointed criminal appeals and only those. And as such, I know that if you were a lawyer, either:


1. You would not have previously claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires, not for any reason. (Your reason was that you wanted to defend Trump-inspired heavy-handed anti-protester behavior, last summer). This is because a lawyer would have known that either the photographer or anyone who had really been there looking at the parking lot in which the tires were slashed could authenticate the photos and then they'd be in. Hell, even a layman knows that a picture of a thing happening is evidence that the thing happened; or

2. You knew you were lying when you claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires. And in that case, your opinion now cannot be trusted. Who can believe "trust me now when I say I was lying then but am telling the truth now"?



....oops...
What case are you talking about?
 

Phys251

1/20/2021: The healing begins
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
39,538
Reaction score
22,041
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Looky here, the most unserious poster on DP shows up to post first. You get a gold star for laughing like our unserious VP.

Did you have anything intelligent to say, or are you just flinging yet another juvenile insult? ;)
 

Phys251

1/20/2021: The healing begins
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
39,538
Reaction score
22,041
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Funny thing is....

I am an appellate attorney who takes appointed criminal appeals and only those. And as such, I know that if you were a lawyer, either:


1. You would not have previously claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires, not for any reason. (Your reason was that you wanted to defend Trump-inspired heavy-handed anti-protester behavior, last summer). This is because a lawyer would have known that either the photographer or anyone who had really been there looking at the parking lot in which the tires were slashed could authenticate the photos and then they'd be in. Hell, even a layman knows that a picture of a thing happening is evidence that the thing happened; or

2. You knew you were lying when you claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires. And in that case, your opinion now cannot be trusted. Who can believe "trust me now when I say I was lying then but am telling the truth now"?



....oops...

Glad we've got folks like you in the system. (y)
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,913
Reaction score
20,892
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Funny thing is....

I am an appellate attorney who takes appointed criminal appeals and only those. And as such, I know that if you were a lawyer, either:


1. You would not have previously claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires, not for any reason. (Your reason was that you wanted to defend Trump-inspired heavy-handed anti-protester behavior, last summer). This is because a lawyer would have known that either the photographer or anyone who had really been there looking at the parking lot in which the tires were slashed could authenticate the photos and then they'd be in. Hell, even a layman knows that a picture of a thing happening is evidence that the thing happened; or

2. You knew you were lying when you claimed that photos and videos of police slashing tires are "not evidence" of police slashing tires. And in that case, your opinion now cannot be trusted. Who can believe "trust me now when I say I was lying then but am telling the truth now"?



....oops...

You have been posting this nonsense for years. :rolleyes:

I have studiously IGNORED you for years because of your various usage of fallacious debating techniques, and your penchant toward arrogant partisan nastiness.

However, I pointed out back then that as there were TWO different pictures, one of police slashing some tires, and another (the main picture) of simply cars in a parking lot with slashed tires, one did not necessarily lead to the other. That I asked for more evidence.

THEN when further evidence was presented that the police had been the slashers, I acknowledged this IMMEDIATELY, and accepted that it occurred as alleged.

I do not post this reply for YOUR edification.

You are IMO incorrigible.

I post this simply to refute this nasty, constant bit of attempted character assassination.

You are DISMISSED again. (I.e. see my tagline!) :coffee:
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
46,430
Reaction score
30,015
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You have been posting this nonsense for years.

<snip>

I cut out the rest of his attempt to rewrite history. It started in this and another thread. (June of 2020, so the whole "years" thing is yet another Captain Adverse lie)

________

Post 13: @Captain Adverse claims it is mere allegation that police slashed tires.

Post 22: Mr Person posts this picture, with comment:

cops-puncturing-1.gif


Post 23: Captain Adverse claims that posting that picture is merely me confirming my confirmation bias, and that "I say again, there was no evidence (photo or video) of the police slashing tires in parking lots provided in the OP story. The testimony simply said the victims had "heard" it was police."

So before you listen to CA's posturing - that he's a lawyer so you really should trust his opinion about what went on on 1/6 - consider the sheer absurdity of insisting that that photo (and other videos elsewhere referred to) is "no evidence" that police were slashing tires. I mean, you can see it right there in the damn photo. You can see the tire, caught mid-deflation.

He's certainly entitled to have and express his opinion. But when it comes to anything Trump-related - even if it's local police and national guardsmen dealing with an in-state protest - he is certain to lie in an attempt to improve the Trumpist position.

He kept going in that thread. It's all weasel words, goalpost-shifting, and straight-up lies.

And other threads...





You are DISMISSED again.

Oh I'm dismissed, am I? :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,913
Reaction score
20,892
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
In regards to "Slashing Tires" it is most important to go to the FACTS, and not just allegations.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL CHAIN OF MY RESPONSES TO THAT THREAD WHERE I AM ALLEGED TO HAVE "LIED" ABOUT "SLASHING TIRES":


You will find MY posts in that thread in this order:

1. at #13 page 1.

2. at #23 page 1.

3. at #54 page 3.

4. at #57 page 3.

5. at #60 page 3.

FINALLY RESULTING IN MY STARTING A NEW THREAD WITH THIS:


As you can see, the "lawyer" who is asserting his story of my "perfidy" is clearly spreading misinformation. Completely based on his own "confirmation bias."

(Sigh) Now that I have gone through the effort of providing the facts...I guess it is up to the readers to decide.

Hopefully that is the end of such attempts to derail this thread. :coffee:
 
Last edited:

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In regards to "Slashing Tires" it is most important to go to the FACTS, and not just allegations.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL CHAIN OF MY RESPONSES TO THAT THREAD WHERE I AM ALLEGED TO HAVE "LIED" ABOUT "SLASHING TIRES":


You will find MY posts in that thread in this order:

1. at #13 page 1.

2. at #23 page 1.

3. at #54 page 3.

4. at #57 page 3.

5. at #60 page 3.

FINALLY RESULTING IN MY STARTING A NEW THREAD WITH THIS:


As you can see, the "lawyer" who is asserting his story of my "perfidy" is clearly spreading misinformation. Completely based on his own "confirmation bias."

(Sigh) Now that I have gone through the effort of providing the facts...I guess it is up to the readers to decide.

Hopefully that is the end of such attempts to derail this thread. :coffee:
He does that all the time. Every one of his posts are either textbook fallacies, professional trolling, or outright, twisted lies.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,267
Reaction score
28,257
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I cut out the rest of his attempt to rewrite history. It started in this and another thread. (June of 2020, so the whole "years" thing is yet another Captain Adverse lie)

________

Post 13: @Captain Adverse claims it is mere allegation that police slashed tires.

Post 22: Mr Person posts this picture, with comment:

cops-puncturing-1.gif


Post 23: Captain Adverse claims that posting that picture is merely me confirming my confirmation bias, and that "I say again, there was no evidence (photo or video) of the police slashing tires in parking lots provided in the OP story. The testimony simply said the victims had "heard" it was police."

So before you listen to CA's posturing - that he's a lawyer so you really should trust his opinion about what went on on 1/6 - consider the sheer absurdity of insisting that that photo (and other videos elsewhere referred to) is "no evidence" that police were slashing tires. I mean, you can see it right there in the damn photo. You can see the tire, caught mid-deflation.

He's certainly entitled to have and express his opinion. But when it comes to anything Trump-related - even if it's local police and national guardsmen dealing with an in-state protest - he is certain to lie in an attempt to improve the Trumpist position.

He kept going in that thread. It's all weasel words, goalpost-shifting, and straight-up lies.

And other threads...







Oh I'm dismissed, am I? :ROFLMAO:
You have issues, really. And you're dismissed.
 

Praxas

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
22,399
Reaction score
11,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have issues, really. And you're dismissed.

You don't know how to dismiss someone. Your comments are about an UN-American as they come. Go back to your safe space where you feel valuable as some fake bartender.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
46,430
Reaction score
30,015
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Good lord, @Captain Adverse , but that is a ridiculous attempt to rewrite history.

In the first (and other thread), you are point-blank denying that a photo of police slashing tires is evidence of it. It's all out there. And the only reason this thread exists.....


.....is because the police departments admitted that they were indeed slashing tires, as depicted in the photographs (and I believe videos) you insisted were not evidence of police slashing tires.

You didn't have some kind of epiphany after engaging with other posters. You pushed your no evidence crap right up until the moment when the PDs admitted having done it. Then you had to admit it. Maybe some people on DP here would have pressed on, so at least there's that. But this isn't some "see, I was being reasonable!"

So...y'know.... actual witch hunts are bad, but you have too much of a history of falsely claiming things are witch hunts that aren't. Indeed, that's been the standard Trumpist defense for, oh, everything anyone on the Trumpist right does; another version of "fake news". And no, it is not about honoring a standard of proof only applicable where the government seeks to strip your freedoms. It's about excusing yourself from ever thinking about ill done by the politicians you vote for, and generally trying to shut down debate about whether they have done ill.




You won't, but you really should ask yourself why someone else might want to listen to a person or group of people whose reaction to anything reflecting negatively on anyone that gets associatd in any way with the Trumpist right is fake, or a witch hunt, or anything like that. "Fake fake fake fake fake fake." It's all I've heard from said persons for the last five-ish years.

That said, the only people who have shown their agreement with you by making personal remarks about me are people who attack me whenever I happen to pass on by. That, too, tells me something.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,913
Reaction score
20,892
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Well, the most active Forum members of "Poison Pen Brigade" have had their say.

Still responding with ad hominem, appeals to emotion, appeals to the absurd, Tu quoque, and plain old moral panic tactics designed to do nothing but make them feel superior while offering no real arguments at all.

Just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Meanwhile, this blog discussion remains about the Kangaroo Court (in which the above member exemplars play major roles) of Public Opinion. The source of just about every pogrom, witch hunt, and other socially destructive authoritarian systemic abuses in history.

All the while claiming the "moral high ground" while themselves acting immorally.

The issue is fairness in actual trial proceedings. That there is a need for inculcating in the minds of the general population the importance of having a fair and open mind. One capable of awareness to the possibility someone being demonized by actors with ulterior motives may not be the demonic force alleged.

So I repeat. IMO Mr. Chauvin had been crucified in the news and social media. That this created a predisposition in the minds of prospective jurors he was guilty of any charge brought against him. That and the possible fears of mob reprisals if they did not find him guilty on all charges. That this is the antithesis of a fair trial regardless of who may be the defendant.

Ultimately? That this kind of prejudice can easily be turned on anyone who was once part of the "accepted" crowd, but for whatever reason, becomes the most recent target of the mob and media.
 
Last edited:

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
41,182
Reaction score
28,463
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
He does that all the time. Every one of his posts are either textbook fallacies, professional trolling, or outright, twisted lies.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's "professional" but I agree with everything else you've expressed in the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
41,182
Reaction score
28,463
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, the most active Forum members of "Poison Pen Brigade" have had their say.

Still responding with ad hominem, appeals to emotion, appeals to the absurd, Tu quoque, and plain old moral panic tactics designed to do nothing but make them feel superior while offering no real arguments at all.

Just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Meanwhile, this blog discussion remains about the Kangaroo Court (in which the above member exemplars play major roles) of Public Opinion. The source of just about every pogrom, witch hunt, and other socially destructive authoritarian systemic abuses in history.

All the while claiming the "moral high ground" while themselves acting immorally.

The issue is fairness in actual trial proceedings. That there is a need for inculcating in the minds of the general population the importance of having a fair and open mind. One capable of awareness to the possibility someone being demonized by actors with ulterior motives may not be the demonic force alleged.

So I repeat. IMO Mr. Chauvin had been crucified in the news and social media. That this created a predisposition in the minds of prospective jurors he was guilty of any charge brought against him. That and the possible fears of mob reprisals if they did not find him guilty on all charges. That this is the antithesis of a fair trial regardless of who may be the defendant.

Ultimately? That this kind of prejudice can easily be turned on anyone who was once part of the "accepted" crowd, but for whatever reason, becomes the most recent target of the mob and media.

It will be interesting to see how Chauvin's legal team frames his appeals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they will express much of the above to make their points.

I think the Chauvin jury should have been sequestered from the very beginning and not just for closing arguments.

 

Rogue Valley

FACTA NON VERBA
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
63,034
Reaction score
47,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No one on the Chauvin jury has complained they were either influenced or pressured to vote the way that they did.

They sent no notes to the judge. One juror said 11 were fully prepared to vote guilty within the first few hours of deliberations.

The Defense could not explain away the brutal 9 minute 29 second video, and the testimony of pulmonologist Dr. Martin Tobin was definitive and conclusive.

Judge Cahill was careful and Appeals in such cases rarely succeed. In addition.....

 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
31,541
Reaction score
35,075
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning:
There has been enough nonsense in here to last a life time, everyone has had their say and now it's time for it to be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom