1. 2aHawaii
  2. General Topics
  3. Political Discussion
  4. Evidence of election tampering
Print
Pages: 1 [2]

Evidence of election tampering (Read 6037 times)

eyeeatingfish

Re: Proof of election tampering
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2022, 01:59:20 PM »
Quote from: macsak on March 16, 2022, 11:59:35 AM
lol
the nitpicker saying i am nitpicking
they are not often interchangeable
they are specific legal definitions
you are always extremely careful with your words to avoid being wrong as you are here...

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

proof noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
\ ˈprüf  \
Definition of proof (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried
especially : unyielding hardness
5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6aplural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction
b: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph
c: a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation
d: a test photographic print made from a negative
7: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8a: the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
b: strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit
specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present
whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol
Logged

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Proof of election tampering
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2022, 02:09:08 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 17, 2022, 01:51:08 PM
And the grand jury concluded there was enough to justify the indictment.

Nonetheless, I am talking about colloquial usage of the terms, people often use these words interchangeably in speech. If we are talking about usage in an academic setting then sure, they are not the same.

So, you pretend you meant "colloquial definitions" when you realize you were wrong?

Who's nitpicking?

Legal settings are not academic.  They are "real world settings."  But, maybe that's just me nitpicking between the definitions you seem to be making up as you go.

Grand juries do not weigh the evidence to determine guilt or innocence.  They evaluate whether (1) a crime was committed, (2) a suspect had ample reason to become a suspect (means, motive, opportunity), and (3) whether or not the state has sufficient supporting evidence to go to trial.

None of that is "proof", since there has been no opportunity for the defense to present potentially  exculpatory evidence.  If the investigators and prosecutors feel they have a strong enough case (which should include any defense information that may exonerate the suspect), that's the only information the grand jury is allowed to consider.

Evidence is not considered proof if there also exists evidence that contradicts it.

The grand jury did not draw a "conclusion".  They made a determination that the evidence was sufficient for a trial to be conducted so that a conclusion can be reashed.

Being indicted is not proof of guilt.  The state and feds indict people all the time via grand jury. 

The only "conclusion" a grand jury reaches is the existence of probable cause.  Period.
Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

macsak

Re: Proof of election tampering
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2022, 02:14:14 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 17, 2022, 01:51:08 PM
And the grand jury concluded there was enough to justify the indictment.

Nonetheless, I am talking about colloquial usage of the terms, people often use these words interchangeably in speech. If we are talking about usage in an academic setting then sure, they are not the same. But if your concern in this thread is really the scientific definition of the word then I will change the heading for accuracy.

you claim colloquial use, then cite an online dictionary a couple of posts later (and use the FIFTH definition), lol
then you ask about an academic setting when we are clearly talking about a LEGAL setting...
and please tell us all what a "scientific definition" is...
Logged

macsak

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2022, 02:18:38 PM »
lol
changes the title of the thread rather than admitting he is wrong
well, i guess that is an admission...
Logged

changemyoil66

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2022, 04:47:39 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 17, 2022, 01:55:00 PM
A finger print found inside your car is pretty golden, the suspect can't deny being in the car.

Why was the prosecution declined?
The witness ID'd a  UC in the line up as 1 of the 4 or 5 guys in the get away car, despite IDing the guy he saw in my car.

Since this error was done, prosecution felt it wasnt a slam dunk.

"Which guy did u see in ur neighbors car"

"Guy #1"

"Which guys did u see in the get away car that tried to run u over"

"The rest of them"

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Logged

eyeeatingfish

Re: Proof of election tampering
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2022, 01:23:33 PM »
Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on March 17, 2022, 02:09:08 PM
So, you pretend you meant "colloquial definitions" when you realize you were wrong?

Nope, I had to point it out to you because you are being obtuse.

You want to nitpick that much there is never real proof. A jury of 12 convicting a person isn't proof either,.
Logged

eyeeatingfish

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2022, 01:25:32 PM »
Quote from: macsak on March 17, 2022, 02:18:38 PM
lol
changes the title of the thread rather than admitting he is wrong
well, i guess that is an admission...

Because you guys would rather complain about the title than discuss the content of the news.

Why are you avoiding discussing the story and its implications?

Funny how I am so wrong yet I post the dictionary definition showing I am not wrong and all you can do is respond by saying it is the 5th definition. Who doesn't want to admit they are wrong again?
Logged

eyeeatingfish

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2022, 01:27:47 PM »
Quote from: changemyoil66 on March 17, 2022, 04:47:39 PM
The witness ID'd a  UC in the line up as 1 of the 4 or 5 guys in the get away car, despite IDing the guy he saw in my car.

Since this error was done, prosecution felt it wasnt a slam dunk.

"Which guy did u see in ur neighbors car"

"Guy #1"

"Which guys did u see in the get away car that tried to run u over"

"The rest of them"

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Thats too bad but I understand why.
There has been a push back over the use of witness identifications with the advent of a lot of studies that show they are not as reliable as we would hope.
Logged

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Proof of election tampering
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2022, 02:13:04 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 18, 2022, 01:23:33 PM
Nope, I had to point it out to you because you are being obtuse.

You want to nitpick that much there is never real proof. A jury of 12 convicting a person isn't proof either,.

When you see a video of the defendant pull the trigger and shoot the murdered victim, I believe that counts as "real proof."  Saying real proof never exists is about as wrong as you could be.

I never said a jury verdict nor a grand jury indictment was proof of anything.

YOU implied that.

TITLE:  Proof of election tampering

OP:
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 14, 2022, 03:25:59 PM
...
Republican county clerk indicted by Colorado grand jury over election tampering
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/03/09/republican-county-clerk-tina-peters-indicted-election-charges/9440443002/
...
Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

hvybarrels

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2022, 02:24:43 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on March 18, 2022, 01:25:32 PM
Because you guys would rather complain about the title than discuss the content of the news.

Why are you avoiding discussing the story and its implications?

Funny how I am so wrong yet I post the dictionary definition showing I am not wrong and all you can do is respond by saying it is the 5th definition. Who doesn't want to admit they are wrong again?

Logged
If you dissolve your enemies in acid, technically that's turning your problems into a solution.

ren

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2022, 03:26:45 PM »
someone should take English 100 and a Grammarly subscription
Logged
Deeds Not Words

aletheuo137

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2022, 04:24:13 PM »
Report: Trump Admin. Directed DHS to Probe Voter Fraud

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-dhs-probe-voter-fraud/2022/03/18/id/1061803/

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Logged

eyeeatingfish

Re: Evidence of election tampering
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2022, 09:59:21 PM »
Quote from: ren on March 18, 2022, 03:26:45 PM
someone should take English 100 and a Grammarly subscription

All Macsak has to do is go to a dictionary website
Logged
Print
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »