UVA Class of 2012 Forum

[CE2JD]

So you're saying the presumption should be guilt rather than innocence?

Again, no.

Using the word "bump" in this circumstance is more than likely misleading.

Why?

Epstein initially pled guilty to the charges as filed in an affidavit by a Secret Service agent who used the word "karate chop" in his affidavit. I'd say this is a good reason to believe he likely did more than bump into the alleged victim.

[mallard]

Because striking someone in the head and bumping into someone are distinguishable.

Striking someone in the head is considered assault and the other is not.

No offense, but is there something wrong with you? The facts of the case are in dispute and you take one side based on the idea that there is a difference between them?

How about this. A guy is on trial for murder. You're prosecuting him. He argues that the victim actually committed suicide. You suggest that, since killing someone and not killing someone are distinguishable, he must have done it.

If he initially pled guilty, that's one thing; if the facts are actually in dispute, that's something different entirely.

[philosophy]

Log into UVA SIS. Click on "View Financial Aid" and select this year. Click the "loan counseling link" and select your loan(s). The link won't work, but will take you to the right website.

To complete your entrance interview: http://mappingyourfuture.org/oslc/
Select the appropriate loans and institution (UVA), and then read and answer questions.

I don't guarantee that this is the right way, but it seems to work.

in the section where we choose our institution, are we supposed to choose 'UVA,' as there is no 'UVA Law' option? this seems odd, considering there is a 'UVA Medicine' option.

[RTF]

Because striking someone in the head and bumping into someone are distinguishable.

Striking someone in the head is considered assault and the other is not.

No offense, but is there something wrong with you? The facts of the case are in dispute and you take one side based on the idea that there is a difference between them?

How about this. A guy is on trial for murder. You're prosecuting him. He argues that the victim actually committed suicide. You suggest that, since killing someone and not killing someone are distinguishable, he must have done it.

If he initially pled guilty, that's one thing; if the facts are actually in dispute, that's something different entirely.

What are you talking about?

All I have said is that using the word "bump" considering the circumstances is a bit misleading.

[CE2JD]

Because striking someone in the head and bumping into someone are distinguishable.

Striking someone in the head is considered assault and the other is not.

No offense, but is there something wrong with you? The facts of the case are in dispute and you take one side based on the idea that there is a difference between them?

How about this. A guy is on trial for murder. You're prosecuting him. He argues that the victim actually committed suicide. You suggest that, since killing someone and not killing someone are distinguishable, he must have done it.

If he initially pled guilty, that's one thing; if the facts are actually in dispute, that's something different entirely.

So why do you think Epstein would plead guilty to something he didn't do if the burden of proof is on the plaintiff? It's completely reasonable to take a guilty plea as a likely (not definite) sign that the defendant is guilty.

[showNprove]

.

[mallard]

What are you talking about?

All I have said is that using the word "bump" considering the circumstances is a bit misleading.

You don't get to say "considering the circumstances" if the circumstances are under dispute. If they actually aren't and the stories of the accuser and the accused match, fine. But what we're talking about here is the suggestion that the accusation didn't match what actually happened (in a post from the previous page).

[CE2JD]

What are you talking about?

All I have said is that using the word "bump" considering the circumstances is a bit misleading.

You don't get to say "considering the circumstances" if the circumstances are under dispute. If they actually aren't and the stories of the accuser and the accused match, fine. But what we're talking about here is the suggestion that the accusation didn't match what actually happened (in a post from the previous page).

Your mistake is in ignoring the guilty plea.

[mallard]

Your mistake is in ignoring the guilty plea.

Could easily have been part of a bargain. The quote from the previous page suggests that he actually disputes the facts.

[iceberger]

Because striking someone in the head and bumping into someone are distinguishable.

Striking someone in the head is considered assault and the other is not.

No offense, but is there something wrong with you? The facts of the case are in dispute and you take one side based on the idea that there is a difference between them?

How about this. A guy is on trial for murder. You're prosecuting him. He argues that the victim actually committed suicide. You suggest that, since killing someone and not killing someone are distinguishable, he must have done it.

If he initially pled guilty, that's one thing; if the facts are actually in dispute, that's something different entirely.

So why do you think Epstein would plead guilty to something he didn't do if the burden of proof is on the plaintiff? It's completely reasonable to take a guilty plea as a likely (not definite) sign that the defendant is guilty.

not to jump into either side of this argument, but fwiw i think i read somewhere or heard a description that he entered an alford plea

[CE2JD]

Your mistake is in ignoring the guilty plea.

Could easily have been part of a bargain. The quote from the previous page suggests that he actually disputes the facts.

A alford plea is a type of guilty plea that is interpreted by the court to mean an admittance of having committed the offense in question. If the plea is good enough for such an assumption of guilt to be made in a court of law, it's certainly good enough for someone else to use as an indication of how likely a person was to have committed said offense.

[mallard]

Except that the premise of this argument (again, from the page prior) was that he was privately disputing the facts.

[philosophy]

Log into UVA SIS. Click on "View Financial Aid" and select this year. Click the "loan counseling link" and select your loan(s). The link won't work, but will take you to the right website.

To complete your entrance interview: http://mappingyourfuture.org/oslc/
Select the appropriate loans and institution (UVA), and then read and answer questions.

I don't guarantee that this is the right way, but it seems to work.

in the section where we choose our institution, are we supposed to choose 'UVA,' as there is no 'UVA Law' option? this seems odd, considering there is a 'UVA Medicine' option.

I thought that too, but there is no UVA Med option for the GradPLUS. I guess the med school has a separate office for handling Stafford loans.

i take it that you chose the 'UVA' option and completed the counseling without a hitch?

[CE2JD]

Except that the premise of this argument (again, from the page prior) was that he was privately disputing the facts.

So you take the claims of the defendant made privately to his friends while not under oath over the claim of guilt he made under oath in a court of law? Interesting.

[mallard]

Except that the premise of this argument (again, from the page prior) was that he was privately disputing the facts.

So you take the claims of the defendant made privately to his friends while not under oath over the claim of guilt he made under oath in a court of law? Interesting.

The discussion that you entered was one in which the competing claims ("karate chop" and "bump") were being compared against each other and another poster was suggesting on the basis that these can be distinguished that the former was more likely, and that if it hadn't happened, "the authorities wouldn't have gotten involved." Please show me a way in which that does not lead to a presumption of guilt for everyone accused of a crime.

[CE2JD]

Except that the premise of this argument (again, from the page prior) was that he was privately disputing the facts.

So you take the claims of the defendant made privately to his friends while not under oath over the claim of guilt he made under oath in a court of law? Interesting.

The discussion that you entered was one in which the competing claims ("karate chop" and "bump") were being compared against each other and another poster was suggesting on the basis that these can be distinguished that the former was more likely, and that if it hadn't happened, "the authorities wouldn't have gotten involved." Please show me a way in which that does not lead to a presumption of guilt for everyone accused of a crime.

I assume RTF made his comment in light of Epstein's guilty plea, in which case I believe he's totally justified in assuming guilt.

[Kohinoor]

FWIW, I got the story of Marcus. I'm not defending him, just giving what I understand to be his side of the story. He did not disclose this on his application because it is a misdemeanor. He claims to have been plastered when it happened and bumped into her hard (not a karate chop), then called her the N-word, has to do community service, is on probation, and is still attending AA as a result.

I report, you decide.

No matter how drunk I were, I'd never call someone that. I don't have any sympathy for him.

I think using the word "bumped" is a little misleading. I have bumped into people on the Subway before, frankly I have had people bump into me and get angry about it. Never have I ever considered "bumping" into someone assault and never does "bumping" into someone ever warrant being called a racial slur.

My point is, he had to do a little more than just "bump" into this girl.

A disinterested third party called it an open-handed slap.

[showNprove]

.

[Kohinoor]

So you're saying the presumption should be guilt rather than innocence?

Again, no.

Using the word "bump" in this circumstance is more than likely misleading.

Why?

Because given the testimony of a suspect who admitted to being shit-faced versus the victim and a disinterested federal officer, we usually err on the side of the latter.

[mallard]

Because given the testimony of a suspect who admitted to being shit-faced versus the victim and a disinterested federal officer, we usually err on the side of the latter.

I like to err on the side of presuming innocence.

[CE2JD]

Because given the testimony of a suspect who admitted to being shit-faced versus the victim and a disinterested federal officer, we usually err on the side of the latter.

I like to err on the side of presuming innocence.

Apparently, even when a guilty plea is entered.

[mallard]

Because given the testimony of a suspect who admitted to being shit-faced versus the victim and a disinterested federal officer, we usually err on the side of the latter.

I like to err on the side of presuming innocence.

Apparently, even when a guilty plea is entered.

Fair enough.

[RTF]

Sorry, work was calling.

I think the others basically answered for me, thanks guys.

Just out of curiousity, under what circumstances would you then ever find someone in Epstein's circumstances guilty?

[Cavalier]

Well, looks like Marcus Epstein finally made his Facebook profile private.

[mallard]

Sorry, work was calling.

I think the others basically answered for me, thanks guys.

Just out of curiousity, under what circumstances would you then ever find someone in Epstein's circumstances guilty?

Well, if the facts are under dispute, I would consider him guilty if a court resolved the issue of fact against him.