MSNBC Article: Rivian Falls Apart

[Zoidz]

Was he convicted or no? An Impeachment is a trial, was he convicted? The thing is simply being put on trial doesn't confer guilt, for ANYONE. Was he convicted through the process laid out for him in the constitution? IF NOT, he is INNOCENT PERIOD.

Impeachments and criminal trials never return an innocent verdict. The verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty". "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent". "Not Guilty" means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sponsored

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Impeachments and criminal trials never return an innocent verdict. The verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty". "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent". "Not Guilty" means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That’s exactly what not guilty means. The fact that you don’t think those are the same thing is pretty frightening.

 

[Jac]

That’s exactly what not guilty means. The fact that you don’t think those are the same thing is pretty frightening.

“WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY" MEANS
“In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt.”

 

[Thud]

Sure. I've only been hearing that the last 6 years, what's another 6 months?

Give it time. The 14-count conviction of his business for criminal fraud is just the beginning, and that was years in the making as well.

In the meantime, you still have time to purchase your NFT digital trading cards. ‘Tis the season of grifting after all.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

“WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY" MEANS
“In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt.”

What do you suppose the phrase “innocent until PROVEN guilty“ means?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Give it time. The 14-count conviction of his business for criminal fraud is just the beginning, and that was years in the making as well.

In the meantime, you still have time to purchase your NFT digital trading cards. ‘Tis the season of grifting after all.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike yourself, I couldn’t care less about Trump or what he does. You just keep living off that hope that someday the orange man that made you so sad will get put in jail and all the rational people will just go on with our lives instead.

 

[Jac]

Give it time. The 14-count conviction of his business for cr

What do you suppose the phrase “innocent until PROVEN guilty“ means?

As @Zoidz indicated above, a not guilty verdict doesn‘t mean the person is innocent. The accused is PRESUMED to be innocent and the bar for deciding guilt is it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict doesn’t equal innocence. E.g., “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.”

”The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.”

 

[Donald Stanfield]

As @Zoidz indicated above, a not guilty verdict doesn‘t mean the person is innocent. The accused is PRESUMED to be innocent and the bar for deciding guilt is it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict doesn’t equal innocence.

”The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.”

Do you own a gamma knife with how thin you’re splitting those hairs? I would be careful putting out such a misinformed opinion when you don’t even understand the purpose behind the presumption of innocence.

Let me clue you in, the entire point of the justice system in the USA runs on the presumption of innocence. Until you are proven guilty in a court of law you are to be treated as innocent in every and all official capacity. Only fascists believe they get to pick and choose outside of this metric who is guilty and who is innocent.

 

[Thud]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike yourself, I couldn’t care less about Trump or what he does. You just keep living off that hope that someday the orange man that made you so sad will get put in jail and all the rational people will just go on with our lives instead.

The orange man’s latest grift is selling $99 digital super-hero trading cards of himself. There was a Major Announcement yesterday.

There are plenty of rational people who simply want to see some accountability for trying to overturn an election by an “orange man” who *literally* said last week that the Constitution should be terminated to put him back in office. And he’s running again in 2024, and he will absolutely get plenty of votes from people who “don’t care.”

 

[Clovis]

Is proving people grace a thing of the past? We as a species, particularly western cultures, have become drama loving sissies. Ruining someone life for 15 seconds of drama to watch, making big claims only to strike a reaction— mindless sissies. We are beta testers as early adopters. I gained brand loyalty the with my purchase. We vote with our dollars and my vote is to support, help, and encourage Rivian through this massive attempt to modernize the vehicle into an electric future.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The orange man’s latest grift is selling $99 digital super-hero trading cards of himself. There was a Major Announcement yesterday.

There are plenty of rational people who simply want to see some accountability for trying to overturn an election by an “orange man” who *literally* said last week that the Constitution should be terminated to put him back in office. And he’s running again in 2024, and he will absolutely get plenty of votes from people who “don’t care.”

It’s funny because the only place I hear about shit like this is here, where political opinions don’t belong, from people like you. Seriously you need to keep these shit tier political complaints OFF of a car forum.

And in b4 you tell me I’m doing the same, I never actually took a political stance nor do you actually know what my stance is. Telling you that you have surpassed the point of rationality by spreading this leftist hogwash here is not a political position. I’m just sick and tired of hearing this shit.

This forum is the closest thing I have to social media and I’m going to be getting kicked off before I see it turn into a leftist circle jerk. I’d say the exact same thing in here if people were pushing pro right wing stuff but they aren’t. These things ALWAYS get political because someone makes a left leaning comment and frankly I’m really tired of it.

 

[Zoidz]

That’s exactly what not guilty means. The fact that you don’t think those are the same thing is pretty frightening.

Sometimes an example helps those who miss the difference in legal wording vs. common assumption.

The legal phrase is not "innocent until proven guilty" - the legal and accepted phrase is "presumption of innocence" which is commonly but inaccurately transformed to "innocent until proven guilty". They are simply not the same thing.

As an example, this guy was found "not guilty" of murder in the court of law. The jury and court never said he was innocent. The word "innocent" does not appear on his or anyone else's criminal record, it says "not guilty". He later admitted to the murder. He was never innocent of the crime, he actually committed the crime. But the court of law could not prove it, and the jury returned "Not guilty". The jury did not return "innocent". "Not guilty" and "Innocent" are not the same thing. Any judge or attorney will tell you that.

I understand that these critical thinking concepts might be challenging for some people.

For the record, I posted my previous comment to be non-political and I'll stay that way.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Sometimes an example helps those who miss the difference in legal wording vs. common assumption.

The legal phrase is not "innocent until proven guilty" - the legal and accepted phrase is "presumption of innocence" which is commonly but inaccurately transformed to "innocent until proven guilty". They are simply not the same thing.

As an example, this guy was found "not guilty" of murder in the court of law. The jury and court never said he was innocent. The word "innocent" does not appear on his or anyone else's criminal record, it says "not guilty". He later admitted to the murder. He was never innocent of the crime, he actually committed the crime. But the court of law could not prove it, and the jury returned "Not guilty". The jury did not return "innocent". "Not guilty" and "Innocent" are not the same thing. Any judge or attorney will tell you that.

I understand that these critical thinking concepts might be challenging for some people.

For the record, I posted my previous comment to be non-political and I'll stay that way.

Love that subtle dig at my intelligence. Totally non partisan right there. If you’re going to be a smarmy little asshole at least have the balls to come right out with it in the future.

Next, let’s address what the presumption of innocence means. It means people don’t get to assume you are guilty of ANYTHING until it’s proven in a court of law. You are to receive no punishment for something you are not convicted of. It’s also totally and completely inaccurate and unacceptable to declare someone guilty of something they have not been convicted of which is where this whole exchange even originated from.

Instead of a weak ass semantic argument splitting hairs over the presumption of innocence how about you just leave your leftist bullshit off a car forum? I don’t want to hear about orange man in her period.

It’s beyond amusing to me the level of absolute smugness on the left and their total disregard for the feelings or opinions of others, going so far as to work against their own stated goals to feed and satisfy said smugness. In here the goal of the left is clearly to encourage the widespread adoption of EVs.

Yet so many of you are actively injecting your politics and biases into a subject which should be apolitical in nature. You wonder why EVs get so much pushback from right wing circles while lacking the self awareness to realize your own intolerance and left wing biases being injected into any space you inhabit, even one’s expressly prohibiting it, are the entire cause of the pushback.

People like you, and everyone else, who’s went out of their way to split hairs or inject political bias are the reason things like EVs are polarized politically. I suggest leaving this on CNN.com where it belongs. You guys can all stroke each other about how bad orange man is and how stupid I am somewhere else. I don’t want to read it. Stick to talking about Rivian or shut up.

 

[Zoidz]

Love that subtle dig at my intelligence. Totally non partisan right there. If you’re going to be a smarmy little asshole at least have the balls to come right out with it in the future.

Next, let’s address what the presumption of innocence means. It means people don’t get to assume you are guilty of ANYTHING until it’s proven in a court of law. You are to receive no punishment for something you are not convicted of. It’s also totally and completely inaccurate and unacceptable to declare someone guilty of something they have not been convicted of which is where this whole exchange even originated from.

Instead of a weak ass semantic argument splitting hairs over the presumption of innocence how about you just leave your leftist bullshit off a car forum? I don’t want to hear about orange man in her period.

It’s beyond amusing to me the level of absolute smugness on the left and their total disregard for the feelings or opinions of others, going so far as to work against their own stated goals to feed and satisfy said smugness. In here the goal of the left is clearly to encourage the widespread adoption of EVs.

Yet so many of you are actively injecting your politics and biases into a subject which should be apolitical in nature. You wonder why EVs get so much pushback from right wing circles while lacking the self awareness to realize your own intolerance and left wing biases being injected into any space you inhabit, even one’s expressly prohibiting it, are the entire cause of the pushback.

People like you, and everyone else, who’s went out of their way to split hairs or inject political bias are the reason things like EVs are polarized politically. I suggest leaving this on CNN.com where it belongs. You guys can all stroke each other about how bad orange man is and how stupid I am somewhere else. I don’t want to read it. Stick to talking about Rivian or shut up.

What's incredibly funny about your rant is that I'm a gun toting registered Republican, and respect the constitution and the law. Cheers dude, you have anger problems.

 

[Thud]

He was impeached, but he was NOT removed from office because he was not convicted of ANYTHING. An impeachment is a trial, they are hearings. After the hearings absolutely NOTHING happened.

Impeachment is not a criminal process.
In the impeachment process, conviction is not a determination of guilt or innocence (edit: of a crime). It is a determination as to whether to remove from office or not.
As stated by the senate GOP leader, conviction (removal from office) did not apply as he was already out of office at that time.

This is independent of criminal investigations; for example a conviction after impeachment would not factor in to "double jeopardy" protection in the criminal process. The criminal process is what would lead to criminal penalties.

Sponsored