Is Trump Mad?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.

Is Trump Mad?

yes
93
65%
no
36
25%
maybe
8
6%
maybe not
3
2%
dont know
3
2%
 
Total votes: 143

Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Oldjohnw »

And even if declared inadmissible it could still be evidence.
John
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

kwackers wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
kwackers wrote:Evidence is evidently evidence.


Interesting use of language. Is this the new "Brexit is brexit"?

kwackers wrote:Doesn't need court approval to be classed as such.


Well it needs court approval to be heard as evidence by the court, so yes it does. Before that it's just something that you call "evidence". Which includes anything that somebody on a cycling forum feels like uttering. You may choose to describe something you read on Facebook or heard on the news, or your mate down the pub told you, as "evidence". But it's not. It's just superannuated gossip. When a court accepts it as evidence, to be heard by the court, then it is evidence.

But look, some people on a British cycling forum have said Donald Trump has "committed crimes", and that "there is plenty of evidence". So it's pointless having an actual trial, isn't it? Just lock him up now, guilty as charged, in the court of UK Cycling.

If evidence exists then evidence exists.
It's called "evidence" long before a court says it is.
When physicists perform experiments they don't wait for the legal profession to declare their evidence valid, they use the language exactly as it's intended to be used.

If I wanted to follow your example then I'd argue that evidence is evidence right up to the point where a court declares it inadmissible.



The context of this discussion was very clear. We were talking about Donald Trump being charged and tried with a criminal offence. Yes, of course physicists talk about "evidence". So do motor mechanics, building surveyers, doctors and all sort of professions. It's a word that people use all the time, of course it is. But we aren't talking about any of those areas. We are talking about the criminal justice system. If a witness thinks they know about a case, the police may take a statement from them. When that statement is accepted by the court, it becomes evidence, in the legal sense. Evidence before the court. Which is the sense in which we are using the word here.
Last edited by mikeymo on 20 Feb 2021, 4:01pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Oldjohnw »

Trump is a criminal: there are areas where that is already established.

For example, his university was closed down because of fraud. Similarly, a major "charity" in his name.
John
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by kwackers »

I'm simply being pedantic just like you are.

It's simple; as I understand it there's evidence Trump has done some illegal stuff and the fact that evidence exists is exactly why it may be possible to bring charges.
Whether it'll hold up in court is a different matter but it's still evidence until it isn't and even it wasn't deemed sufficient for one case it may well be for another.

He claims to have "grabbed them by the pussy", that statement is evidence that could be used in a sexual assault case.
That such a case doesn't exist (afaik) or that a court hasn't accepted it as evidence doesn't stop it being such.

If the police/prosecutor etc decide to bring charges or not they look at all the evidence available.
How can they be said to "look at evidence" if it doesn't exist?
Last edited by kwackers on 20 Feb 2021, 8:17am, edited 1 time in total.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Ben@Forest »

Oldjohnw wrote:Trump is a criminal: there are areas where that is already established.

For example, his university was closed down because of fraud.


Even in that case criminality was not established, it was settled out of court with the settlement specifying that Trump did not admit to any wrongdoing. He paid $25 million to settle so one can take from that any conclusion one wishes to draw but he isn't a criminal from that case.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Oldjohnw »

Stealing money is criminal. Trump was able to settle but that doesn’t change the event that brought it about.

He is a criminal but as yet an unconvicted one.

If a motorist jumps a red light he has broken the law in a potentially lethal way, whether or not he faces charges and is convicted.

PS I fully accept that in a legal sense he is not a criminal since no court has found him so, largely thanks to his being both a president and a rich bully. And my default is, of course, to promote innocence until proven guilt through due process. But in Trump’s case - and I will never be a juror and I cannot influence public opinion - such is my dislike of him and my hatred for all the devastation he has caused, I will make an exception and I will admit my bias and prejudice and drop all pretence of impartiality.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 20 Feb 2021, 8:48am, edited 2 times in total.
John
Stradageek
Posts: 1657
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Stradageek »

You have to remember the famous quote by Krusty the clown from The Simpsons:

"This is America. We don't send our celebrities to jail. We're just going to garnish your salary"

Many a true word.....
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

Oldjohnw wrote:.. such is my dislike of him and my hatred for all the devastation he has caused, I will make an exception and I will admit my bias and prejudice and drop all pretence of impartiality.


Thank you for your refreshing honesty. Would that most other posters here had the same self-awareness.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by Jdsk »

mikeymo wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
661-Pete wrote:In that case the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" was the driving factor: I think this term is no longer used in English criminal courts?

“Only convict if you are satisfied so that you are sure”
https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/


Yes, that is, more or less, how we were instructed, on the three occasions I was a juror.

After the summings-up (summing-ups?), the judge would turn to us and launch into his final summation/instruction. The first time I was rather taken aback, it was almost as though he was telling us a story - "members of the jury, on the 24th of March 2010, an alarm alerted the security guard....".

Anyway the burden of proof went along very similar lines each time.

"In order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecution must prove their case. And how do they do that? By making you sure of it."

The change from "beyond reasonable doubt" is down to an appeal court decision, apparently:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

I don't know if the change helped us much. I daresay my fellow jurors who were determined to find the most outlandish explanations for compelling evidence would have done so anyway.

It's very hard to know the effect of the wording of the instruction, especially as many lines of research are prohibited. One experimental technique is simulated trials, but they're very expensive and blinding is just about impossible.

We deserve better knowledge on such an important subject.

Jonathan
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

Jdsk wrote:
mikeymo wrote:


Yes, that is, more or less, how we were instructed, on the three occasions I was a juror.

After the summings-up (summing-ups?), the judge would turn to us and launch into his final summation/instruction. The first time I was rather taken aback, it was almost as though he was telling us a story - "members of the jury, on the 24th of March 2010, an alarm alerted the security guard....".

Anyway the burden of proof went along very similar lines each time.

"In order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecution must prove their case. And how do they do that? By making you sure of it."

The change from "beyond reasonable doubt" is down to an appeal court decision, apparently:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

I don't know if the change helped us much. I daresay my fellow jurors who were determined to find the most outlandish explanations for compelling evidence would have done so anyway.

It's very hard to know the effect of the wording of the instruction, especially as many lines of research are prohibited. One experimental technique is simulated trials, but they're very expensive and blinding is just about impossible.

We deserve better knowledge on such an important subject.

Jonathan


In at least one of the jury-rooms somebody said something along the lines of "but don't we have to think the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt?" Somebody corrected them - "no, he said we've got to be sure". To which the response was, quite reasonably - "well what on earth does that mean?"

Some of the jurors' attempts to think up reasons why such and such might be an explanation were tortuous. And yes indeed, at least one juror was swayed to change their vote when it became clear it would just bring us to a conclusion quicker, just like the chap in Twelve Angry Men, though there were no Lee J Cobb breakdowns. And yes, women do seem more keen to convict than men, on my small sample.

It was revealing that most of the time I was one of a small number of jurors who made any sort of notes during the trial. And sometimes the only one. I'm pretty sure that my fellow jurors didn't have super memories, considering the number of "what did he say about the such and such?" questions that ended up being asked in the jury room.

I found the whole experience interesting and informative. I came away from it thinking that trial by jury, to paraphrase WSC, is the worst possible system, apart from all the others. There would be more convictions if judges decided, that seems fairly certain. And I imagine even more so for trials involving dangerous drivers, a frequent topic here.

One thing that did impress me was the dedication of West Yorkshire Police officers in collecting information and physical samples to be offered by the prosecutors to the court as evidence.
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

kwackers wrote:He claims to have "grabbed them by the pussy", that statement is evidence that could be used in a sexual assault case.


Well, it might be "evidence" in the court of UK Cycling.

But if it were used in a real court, as evidence, I expect it would be challenged. Maybe even struck out. Because guess what? That's not what he said.

"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape

And I'm going to posit that in the event of a trial there would be a huge difference between alleging that somebody claimed to have actually done something - "grabbed them by the pussy" - and saying that somebody can do something - "You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." Lawyers would make a great deal of that - "it doesn't mean he has ever done it". In fact the full quote, in context, as opposed to your incorrect one, at least implies that he thinks there is some sort of consent.

You can try to dismiss what I'm saying as "pedantry". But "pedantry" is exactly what happens in a court of law, the forensic examination of facts and statements in detail. As opposed to the vague statements wafting about here, driven by bias and prejudice.

It's revealing that the thing you have put forward as your example of "evidence" is factually incorrect. I'm sure you're a good computer programmer, so it's probably best to stick to that, rather than starting a career as a prosecuting barrister.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by kwackers »

mikeymo wrote:Well, it might be "evidence" in the court of UK Cycling.

No, it is actually evidence. It could be produced to give an indication of the sort of person he is or whatever the prosecution feels it could be used for, it could just as easily be dismissed.

Whatever your rant is it's still evidence. It would almost certainly be considered as such by a prosecutor even if they decided not to use it or the judge threw it out.

I honestly have no idea where you're going other than trying to claim evidence doesn't exist.
I refer you to a dictionary.

And with that I'm out.
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

kwackers wrote:
mikeymo wrote:Well, it might be "evidence" in the court of UK Cycling.

No, it is actually evidence. It could be produced to give an indication of the sort of person he is or whatever the prosecution feels it could be used for, it could just as easily be dismissed.

Whatever your rant is it's still evidence. It would almost certainly be considered as such by a prosecutor even if they decided not to use it or the judge threw it out.

I honestly have no idea where you're going other than trying to claim evidence doesn't exist.
I refer you to a dictionary.

And with that I'm out.


Good, at least I won't have to read any more of your abusive language. Language which the moderators are prepared to tolerate from you, but not others, it seems.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by 661-Pete »

Has the ad hominem gone a bit too far in this thread?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Is Trump Mad?

Post by mikeymo »

661-Pete wrote:Has the ad hominem gone a bit too far in this thread?


Well, to avoid repeating the abuse and getting this post modded, I'll refer you to Kwackers post of 19 Feb 2021, 10:50pm.

Do you think that's acceptable? It seems to be acceptable to the moderators.

Or perhaps you think that my suggestion that he should avoid a career in criminal law is comparable?
Post Reply