Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SnakeDoctor
Who are we kidding here? You and I both know what the sign meant.

Our opinions on what the sign might have meant are largely irrelevant.

In the legal system, any ambiguity in interpretation must be interpreted in the direction of innocence of charges, while any prosecutor must show that she unambiguously violated some specific law.

59 posted on 03/04/2009 8:54:54 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625

>> Our opinions on what the sign might have meant are largely irrelevant.

Not insofar as we might be jurors, or jurors might agree with our position. I’d bet that less than 1 out of 20 would take your position on the matter.

>> In the legal system, any ambiguity in interpretation must be interpreted in the direction of innocence of charges

Only “reasonable” doubt must be interpreted in favor of the Defendant. Given her statements of “I can do what I want”, and the fact that she put up the sign after a break in by a black person — I’d contend that your interpretation is not reasonable.

The sign was clearly an advertisement, not a “statement of fact”.

>> while any prosecutor must show that she unambiguously violated some specific law.

She did.

SnakeDoc


60 posted on 03/04/2009 9:01:34 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Proud Charter Member of the Republican Resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson