2016 POTUS Election thread....

You wouldn't really..... KNOW. You could make a choice - you could make a half intelligent half informed GUESS. Which is more by half than anyone else could make. But you wouldn't and couldn't really KNOW. For sure.
I would know what my opinion was, which is all that can be expected of a jury.
 
I think its all the things that arent known that make it a tough call.
If a juror doesn't know something, then it's either because they shouldn't know that for some specific reason, or because the attorney didn't think you should know it.

IMO its sad that we have so much of this in our society. Kids are used as pawns while spouses have a pissing contest.
I agree with this. And people are getting worse on this, not better.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
I would know what my opinion was, which is all that can be expected of a jury.
Right but, his meter was "you can't really know what's best" and, no one really can. We can make a semi-informed choice based on the evidence, but we can't possibly know.
 
Right but, his meter was "you can't really know what's best" and, no one really can. We can make a semi-informed choice based on the evidence, but we can't possibly know.
By that meter, you couldn't accomplish 99% of what happens in the judicial system. If that's what he meant, then it was a useless throw away comment. But I don't think that's what he meant.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
If that's what he meant, then it was a useless throw away comment. But I don't think that's what he meant.
Don't know myself 100 percent, if that's what he meant either. I made a choice based on the context.
By that meter, you couldn't accomplish 99% of what happens in the judicial system.
Sure we can, and do. Jurors decide when asked then worry if they were right, later. But they all know even if it's just deep down, they don't really KNOW. And I'm talking specifically in the stated arena of, "what's best for the kids."
 
Sure we can, and do. Jurors decide when asked then worry if they were right, later. But they all know even if it's just deep down, they don't really KNOW. And I'm talking specifically in the stated arena of, "what's best for the kids."
What I'm saying is if you require absolute knowledge, then you can't accomplish anything. The burden of proof in a legal case is never "beyond all doubt." There are varying levels of proof required, and in a civl context it's just "preponderance of the evidence." My point is if I'm on a jury, I can decide what's best for children according to the proper burden of proof.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
What I'm saying is if you require absolute knowledge, then you can't accomplish anything. The burden of proof in a legal case is never "beyond all doubt." There are varying levels of proof required, and in a civl context it's just "preponderance of the evidence." My point is if I'm on a jury, I can decide what's best for children according to the proper burden of proof.
I understand what you're saying.

And you said it just right, you can decide what you think is best. Which is just what I said too. But you cannot possibly, really, KNOW. And the original meter of "it's really hard to know what's best for the kids" is absolutely true. It is really hard to KNOW and in fact I'm saying it is impossible to KNOW.
 

NoMoRedJ

UDFA
My point was pretty much what Dooms said.

Obviously all a jury can do is make a decision based on the available evidence. Nothing more can be expected. However, it doesnt mean they are making the right decision ultimately because there may be more information that isnt available. And it was in that context with the kids that I was thinking. If both parents are head cases then the jury is trying to pick the lesser of two evils. And sometimes its hard to truly know which is the lesser. Hence, the "its hard to know whats best for the kids" comment.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
My point was pretty much what Dooms said.

Obviously all a jury can do is make a decision based on the available evidence. Nothing more can be expected. However, it doesnt mean they are making the right decision ultimately because there may be more information that isnt available. And it was in that context with the kids that I was thinking. If both parents are head cases then the jury is trying to pick the lesser of two evils. And sometimes its hard to truly know which is the lesser. Hence, the "its hard to know whats best for the kids" comment.
I did exactly what juries do - I made a choice based on the available evidence. I took your comment to mean exactly the way it read, not knowing for sure of course, 100 percent if that is what you meant.

Hard to know what's best for the kids, but not as hard to make a choice about it. I think most everyone understands and agrees with that.

Had you instead said, "Hard to decide what's best for the kids" then I could understand Pep's objections.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top Bottom