Top Law Schools

mallard wrote:

CE2JD wrote:

mallard wrote:

Kohinoor wrote: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.

So you're saying that a guilty plea is not necessarily an admittance of guilt? Amazing.

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote: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.

The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Rainmaker11 wrote:With a hate crime on your record, it will be tough to get your foot in the door anywhere in life.

Is this even a "hate crime" by the books? If so, the consequences would be far more grave than the 180 days max in jail that he is facing.

RTF wrote:The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What else would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Am I completely misunderstanding the case? He entered a guilty plea and the Court didn't resolve anything.

Don't get me wrong. There are good reasons for believing that he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidental bump, but that these things are distinguishable isn't one of them.

showNprove wrote:

philosophy wrote:

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

Yes, sir.

thank you. thank you.

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What else would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Am I completely misunderstanding the case? He entered a guilty plea and the Court didn't resolve anything.

Don't get me wrong. There are good reasons for believing that he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidental bump, but that these things are distinguishable isn't one of them.

So, are those good reasons for believing he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidential bump, good enough to believe that using the word "bump" in this circumstance is probably misleading?

I wonder why he thought "the government cound prove (him) guilty"...

RTF wrote:So, are those good reasons for believing he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidential bump, good enough to believe that using the word "bump" in this circumstance is probably misleading?

Yup. But saying that using the word "bump" is misleading because it wasn't a bump is circular.

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What else would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Am I completely misunderstanding the case? He entered a guilty plea and the Court didn't resolve anything.

Don't get me wrong. There are good reasons for believing that he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidental bump, but that these things are distinguishable isn't one of them.

So basically, you decided to take a nice steamy dump all over our class thread because you believe that the fact that bumping is distinguishable from slapping or karate chopping is not a "good" reason for believing that he initiated the violence?



Thanks mallard. We all really appreciate it.

I feel sorry for any non-UVA person posting here. This thread will be stuck under their "View your posts" link for a long time to come, long after their interest has faded.

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:So, are those good reasons for believing he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidential bump, good enough to believe that using the word "bump" in this circumstance is probably misleading?

Yup. But saying that using the word "bump" is misleading because it wasn't a bump is circular.

Let's just be clear, that wasn't what I was arguing, you mischaracterized my statement to say something it didn't.

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:So, are those good reasons for believing he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidential bump, good enough to believe that using the word "bump" in this circumstance is probably misleading?

Yup. But saying that using the word "bump" is misleading because it wasn't a bump is circular.

It was most likely not a bump because he signed papers indicating that it was something more malicious than a bump, and because more than one third party (who may NOT have been intoxicated) can testify that it was not just a bump. This has already been made clear in the past couple pages here.

JSUVA2012 wrote:I feel sorry for any non-UVA person posting here. This thread will be stuck under their "View your posts" link for a long time to come, long after their interest has faded.

LOL That's for sure.

CE2JD wrote:

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What else would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Am I completely misunderstanding the case? He entered a guilty plea and the Court didn't resolve anything.

Don't get me wrong. There are good reasons for believing that he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidental bump, but that these things are distinguishable isn't one of them.

So basically, you decided to take a nice steamy dump all over our class thread because you believe that the fact that bumping is distinguishable from slapping or karate chopping is not a "good" reason for believing that he initiated the violence?



Thanks mallard. We all really appreciate it.

Jesus. Okay, I'm done here. RTF, PM me if you're interested in continuing the conversation there. Sorry to disturb the thread by engaging the topic.

mallard wrote:

CE2JD wrote:

mallard wrote:

RTF wrote:The disputed fact that he "bumped" as opposed to striking her.

What else would be necessary for you to believe that the court has resolved that fact?

Am I completely misunderstanding the case? He entered a guilty plea and the Court didn't resolve anything.

Don't get me wrong. There are good reasons for believing that he initiated the violence rather than spewing a racial slur after an accidental bump, but that these things are distinguishable isn't one of them.

So basically, you decided to take a nice steamy dump all over our class thread because you believe that the fact that bumping is distinguishable from slapping or karate chopping is not a "good" reason for believing that he initiated the violence?



Thanks mallard. We all really appreciate it.

Jesus. Okay, I'm done here. RTF, PM me if you're interested in continuing the conversation there. Sorry to disturb the thread by engaging the topic.

You weren't "engaging the topic," you were picking apart someone's argument in a thread that has traditionally been free from Harvard-gunner-constantly-analyzing-everyone's-fucking-argument douchebaggery.

edit

wow. this thread went to a crazy place fast. let us get back to happier, more standard topics. chipotle burritos. awesome or incredibly awesome?

Yeah sorry guys. Let's just leave the Epstein stuff dead. Should have never even responded.

On another note, I'm leaving work in two weeks and traveling to South America.

iceberger wrote:wow. this thread went to a crazy place fast. let us get back to happier, more standard topics. chipotle burritos. awesome or incredibly awesome?

IMO,

chipotle burritos w/out guac = awesome

chipotle burritos with guac = incredibly awesome

.

RTF wrote:Yeah sorry guys. Let's just leave the Epstein stuff dead. Should have never even responded.

On another note, I'm leaving work in two weeks and traveling to South America.

Where you going? What for? Any interesting stops?

I also apologize for my part in that. I should have ignored the troll.

There should be a disclaimer before a newby posts to this thread saying:

Negativity is not welcome here! If you plan to disseminate negative vibes, you are not welcome and may find yourself verbally thwarted by a swarm of spidermonkey-like responses. You have been forewarned!

This may have prevented the troll and this last case of pointless argument analyzing. Here is no happier times and posts.

showNprove wrote:In case you weren't aware, they are willing to make quesadillas even though they aren't on the menu--or at least the one in Chapel Hill was.

You were in Chapel Hill, and you ate at Chipotle when you could have gone to any of the zillion awesome independent Mexican joints? Carrburritos FTW!!

JSUVA2012 wrote:

RTF wrote:Yeah sorry guys. Let's just leave the Epstein stuff dead. Should have never even responded.

On another note, I'm leaving work in two weeks and traveling to South America.

Where you going? What for? Any interesting stops?

I'm pretty much all over the place. Starting out in Chile and then either moving up to Peru and Bolivia or across to Argentina. Backpacking has been somewhat of a hobby for me.