In a Court of Law, sure. But us ordinary citizens are at liberty to form reasonable opinions on the preponderance of evidence, not being burdened with a “no shadow of doubt” standard.
Even by preponderance of the evidence, one party must be assigned the burden of proof. That is always the party advancing the claim.
From here:
Lawsuit (PDF)
Amended Complaint (2.5MB PDF)
I keep trying to come up with a response for this, but the idea that a lawyer would pretend that witness credibility doesn’t matter is pretty much literally boggling my mind.
To a lawyer, Bricker, to a lawyer! Most of us don’t have that, ah, honor.
As it should.
Of course, I didn’t say that witness credibility doesn’t matter.
In any debate, any argument, any ANYTHING, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. Here in GD. On the streetcorner. At the watercooler. On a boat. With a goat. In a plane. On a train. Anywhere.
Yeah, sure thing weasel.
Objection! The witness is weaseling the counsel!
Those standards, Bricker, have their place. But we are free to make more general comparisons, form an opinion and hold to that opinion absent conclusive evidence otherwise. These people do worse shit than this before breakfast, why need I offer the benefit of the doubt, unless I am actually on a jury?
Bricker, the man was arrested for assault. The charge was reduced to harassment. The case was dismissed. Does that not suggest to you that the story is accurate, and that the burden of proof lies on you to show that the story is not an accurate portrayal of the facts?
[nitpick]
Actually, if my understanding is correct, the case was not dismissed; the charges were dropped. I think that, from a legal standpoint, dropping the charges (done by the DA) is different from dismissing the case (generally done by a judge). Is that right?
Your point, of course, still stands: there was so little to sustain the arrest that the DA didn’t even pursue the issue. Of course, Bricker will no doubt point out that a law enforcement officer can have what he or she believes to be probable cause for an arrest, and the fact that the case is dismissed doesn’t mean that the officer necessarily made a false arrest or otherwise violated the law. I’m sure that’s true.
But once the charges are dismissed, it seems to me that, in any debate over the issue, we are bound to accept the version of the person arrested unless and until the police (or, in this case, the Secret Service) show reason why we shouldn’t.
Would you elaborate, please? Why not? Don’t most campaigns receive some federal funding, or at least are entitled to federal matching funds? And if they receive them, aren’t they then public events? Aren’t they public events in any case, in the sense of the Constitutional right of free assembly?
In a later post, you write:
Are you also entitled to be protected from dissenting free speech (such as on a T-shirt) that isn’t louder than you?
Does it depend on the context? Why, and under what legal authority?
Just curious.
And of course everyone is forgetting the most important aspect of all these cases. The Vice President of the United States, and the President of the United States cannot be held to any standard of responsibility for the actions of any member of the Secret Service, or his own staff, or any other person employed by the United States of America, because . . . well . . . That’s what those people are there for! To be blamed by the Coward in Chief, or the Dark Shadow Behind the Coward in Cheif for anything they wish to avoid being responsible for.
I mean, no one would expect the Leaders of the free world to object if their minions stomped on the rights of a few citizens of the nation they serve, would they? Without sworn evidence, and a jury verdict? How could a President, or Vice President have any influence over the Secret Service? Let’s be reasonable before we start holding them responsible for anything at all.
Tris
PSSSST. Post 108 covers all of it. Originally, this guy was nabbed for assault because the VP said Howards pushed him. The charge was reduced to harassment. The harassment charges were dismissed.