Ah, so you’re just going to ignore any facts that don’t jibe with your opinion, are you? You only want “opinion” to be defined the way you use it, and to hell with common usage? Fuck that. You don’t get to pick and choose which defintions apply. Especially when you’re the one who wanted to use criminal trials to prove your point, so yes, we are talking about legal definitions. Try to change the subject as much as you want, you still don’t have a leg to stand on.
Is English not your first language? Seriously. If it isn’t, I’ll back off, but your reading comprehension is laughably poor. You’re confusing the verdict with what the vedict is about. A verdict is the opinion of a jury on the matter of fact of a crime. The matter of fact would be, say, Nicole Simpson was killed on such-and-such a date by repeated knife wounds. Or that blood stains matching her DNA were found in OJ’s car. The verdict is the opinion of the jury as to what the matters of fact means. Also from my same link to the definition of “Verdict”:
n : the findings of a jury on issues of fact submitted to it for decision; can be used in formulating a judgment
n. The answer of a jury given to the court concerning any matter of fact in any cause, civil or criminal, committed to their examination and determination; the finding or decision of a jury on the matter legally submitted to them in the course of the trial of a cause.
Next time, read the whole link before shooting your fool mouth off. To claim that a verdict represents a fact is insultingly stupid. I guess you think that the KKK never commited any crime against black people prior to the Civil Rights movement. After all, the juries always found them innocent, so the fact must be that they never actually commited a crime, right? Right?
In legal terminology, the converse of “matter of fact” is not “matter of opinion” but “matter of law.” Juries make findings of fact; judges make findings of law. You can’t even comprehend basic English, and now you’re trying to argue about legal terms?
Look, it’s like this. Ask any competent English teacher whether you should preface every opinion you make with “My opinion is…”. They will tell you not to do that.
As for the matter of verdicts being facts, this only applies in the realm of law. A legal fact is not the same as scientific fact. Tomatoes are vegetables to a lawyer, but fruits to a biologist.
Normally I might question whether that’s relevant, since Fin_man’s comprehension is so clearly deficient, but I’m pretty happy about the fact that mine will be officially bestowed upon me on Thursday. Now if I could just finish those papers instead of posting here…
Getting the fuck off the particular cases, and back the general rant, I’m with Fin-man here.
In my case, I get frustrated over people who speak about U-M admissions policies as if they drafted them and carried them out themselves. I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion that they do or do not support affirmative action policies, but a staggeringly persistent group of people who rant, write letters to the paper, and bitch in the coffeeshop take it further than that. They state what the policy is and how we use it and why the system was chosen. When they DO NOT KNOW the facts. It’s a bit maddening.
Also, more people need to realize that much of the information that comes to us via the media is incomplete and may have a bias. Reading the paper, even a good paper, does not mean that one has a grasp of ALL the facts, or that his/her knowledge is accurate. Accept the limitations of your sources.
Ah, but if you had read some posts above, you will know that the people who rant, write letters, etc are just stating their opinions. Isn’t it obvious???
Someone else has probably already brought this up, but the notion that juries know more than the general public is untrue. Evidence is sometimes excluded which would greatly alter a jury’s perceptions. In those cases, the public, which sometimes does get access to the excluded evidence, knows more than the juries. (Sometimes the rationale for excluding evidence is sound, sometimes it’s a technicality.)
In any event, the SD is not a court of law, just a forum for public opinion. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of place where people can offer their opinions, informed or otherwise. Of course, if they want anyone to accept their opinions, they’ll need something in the way of logic or evidence to back their opinions up, which where the Straight Dope differs from, say, MSN’s The Fray.