Like, whatever, if you're actually on a jury in a criminal trial the decision you're actually making is "Should this person go to jail or not" and layering higher-order concepts on that decision is ultimately futile
-
-
Show this thread
-
"It's like making chocolate chip cookies" come on dude
Show this thread -
Anyway we all know by now that sometimes "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "the cop said that's what happened and cops don't lie" And sometimes, in other cases, it means "Okay everyone saw the cop do it but how do you know they weren't all hypnotized by aliens"
Show this thread -
(The word "reasonable" is this one load-bearing plank of the common law tradition that absolutely cannot hold the weight that's been put on it and has been held up for decades by duct tape and C-clamps and lies The long and storied history of the "reasonable man")
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Speaking as an ex-lawyer, this metaphor is not an explanation of RD. It is explaining a different concept, called "elements of the offense." Idea is that P must prove a list of n things, including "Floyd died", "the cop's actions caused the death" and some others.
-
Unlike "reasonable doubt", which are you are not allowed to explain, you are allowed (and essentially required) to give a detailed explanation of what the elements of the offense are.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.