As my son and his friends "say" to each other, I'm AFK (Away From Keyboard) right now. My friend Zen Buddhist needs a car, so we're off car shopping this morning. I'll write more this afternoon. Have a great morning!
Wanted to leave a quick point about the OJ situation. As a Canadian I have a very difficult time understanding the US Justice System. I can't wrap my head around how he can be found innocent or not guilty of the crime in criminal court (even if that was a farce) and then he goes to another court and he is held financially responsible. That whole idea is interesting to me.
It would be great to see you post about that and get opinions from readers.
Scott - it is a burden of proof thing. In the criminal court the burden of proof is on the State to prove that the defendant did in fact do the crime. The jury is supposed to not return a conviction if there is "reasonable doubt" as to the guilt. In a civil court, the burden of proof shifts more to the defendant. Also the charge is different. And so is the evidence allowed. I knew the OJ trial was all over when one side had to use a "Mr. DNA" cartoon poster to explain DNA evidence to the jury.
Saur♥Kraut has been called The Mouth of the South.
This blog was repeatedly named one of the best blogs in the area by the (then) St. Pete Times and Tampa Tribune. After a hiatus of a little over 3 years, she has recently returned to blogging and generally annoying everyone.
Saur♥Kraut grew up in the Tampa Bay Area and, after a brief period of roaming, settled there for good... just as a tick settles on a dog. She now lives in uneasy symbiosis with the most densely populated area within the State of Florida.
4 comments:
Wanted to leave a quick point about the OJ situation. As a Canadian I have a very difficult time understanding the US Justice System. I can't wrap my head around how he can be found innocent or not guilty of the crime in criminal court (even if that was a farce) and then he goes to another court and he is held financially responsible. That whole idea is interesting to me.
It would be great to see you post about that and get opinions from readers.
Scott
Scott - it is a burden of proof thing. In the criminal court the burden of proof is on the State to prove that the defendant did in fact do the crime. The jury is supposed to not return a conviction if there is "reasonable doubt" as to the guilt. In a civil court, the burden of proof shifts more to the defendant. Also the charge is different. And so is the evidence allowed. I knew the OJ trial was all over when one side had to use a "Mr. DNA" cartoon poster to explain DNA evidence to the jury.
Saur - talk your friend into a Toyota or Honda.
Have a good day AFK!
We demand that you return.
Post a Comment