Zealous wrote:Cyberman is right though. The crimes where certainty beyond reasonable doubt is needed before being found guilty are things like murder.

In less severe cases like provocation or abuse you only need balance of probabilities.

When if someone is accused of abusing someone in a court of law and FIR is registered then certainly it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Indian legal system .Not sure which legal system gives verdicts based on balance on probabilities.

What u are saying maybe true in private companies which has seperate code of conduct for its employess but i would be amazed to know if US legal system had found guilt anyone based on probabilities not by being guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Zealous wrote:Cyberman is right though. The crimes where certainty beyond reasonable doubt is needed before being found guilty are things like murder.

In less severe cases like provocation or abuse you only need balance of probabilities.

When if someone is accused of abusing someone certainly it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Indian legal system in a court of law.Not sure which legal system gives verdicts based on balance on probabilities.

What u are saying maybe true in private companies which has seperate code of conduct for its employess but i would be amazed to know if US legal system had found guilt anyone based on probabilities not by being guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Only in criminal cases. In civil cases the standard of proof is lowered (and that applies to ALL legal systems).

But frankly, I think there is more than enough proof to meet both conditions anyways.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Zealous wrote:Cyberman is right though. The crimes where certainty beyond reasonable doubt is needed before being found guilty are things like murder.

In less severe cases like provocation or abuse you only need balance of probabilities.

When if someone is accused of abusing someone certainly it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Indian legal system in a court of law.Not sure which legal system gives verdicts based on balance on probabilities.

What u are saying maybe true in private companies which has seperate code of conduct for its employess but i would be amazed to know if US legal system had found guilt anyone based on probabilities not by being guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

never. balance of probabilities is only used in things like civil suits where a winner must be decided (divorce issues and the like), and even then its avoided as much as possible.

furthermore, maybe it's different in the us, but i've never heard of a company disciplining a worker based on the "balance of probabilities" in a case with only hearsay and he-said-she-said evidence... especially with something as important as a discrimination case? those are taken very seriously, as they can seriously harm someone's career, and allowing them to go through simply because one side is deemed more believable than the other would be absolutely unheard of.

granted, the uk doesn't have a bill of rights or anything equivalent to it, so its entirely possible that the culture there is different. i have heard before that in accusations of libel in the uk the burden of proof falls on the defendant, not the accuser.

Seppuku wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Zealous wrote:Cyberman is right though. The crimes where certainty beyond reasonable doubt is needed before being found guilty are things like murder.

In less severe cases like provocation or abuse you only need balance of probabilities.

When if someone is accused of abusing someone certainly it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Indian legal system in a court of law.Not sure which legal system gives verdicts based on balance on probabilities.

What u are saying maybe true in private companies which has seperate code of conduct for its employess but i would be amazed to know if US legal system had found guilt anyone based on probabilities not by being guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Only in criminal cases. In civil cases the standard of proof is lowered (and that applies to ALL legal systems).

But frankly, I think there is more than enough proof to meet both conditions anyways.

if you think there's enough proof for beyond a reasonable doubt, you have serious problems understanding the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. hope to god you never sit on a jury in a case i'm in.

i haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but to me it's obvious suarez was the one who refused to shake evra's hand. you can tell by the fact when rio refused to shake suarez hand, suarez paused... waiting for the handshake for a second before realizing rio wouldn't shake, then he moved on. but suarez didn't have that reaction with evra, he just moved smoothly and quickly towards de gea. if he was looking for a handshake surely he would have had the same reaction he had with rio

also the clip in that video posted at about 1 min shows it clear enough. evra's hand hesitated a bit compared to the other handshakes he did, but he was still clealy prepared to shake suarez hand

andiii wrote:i haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but to me it's obvious suarez was the one who refused to shake evra's hand. you can tell by the fact when rio refused to shake suarez hand, suarez paused... waiting for the handshake for a second before realizing rio wouldn't shake, then he moved on. but suarez didn't have that reaction with evra, he just moved smoothly and quickly towards de gea

i agree with you... i know some pool fans are trying to blame it on evra, i think suarez didn't shake his hand though. i just don't understand why it's a controversy - even if everyone else is right with their convicting suarez, we can all accept that he believes in his own innocence (again, even if he's wrong in believing that). not shaking evra's hand doesn't make him a racist, its simply him acting on the frustration of what he thinks was wrongful blame.

stevieg8 wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Zealous wrote:Cyberman is right though. The crimes where certainty beyond reasonable doubt is needed before being found guilty are things like murder.

In less severe cases like provocation or abuse you only need balance of probabilities.

When if someone is accused of abusing someone certainly it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Indian legal system in a court of law.Not sure which legal system gives verdicts based on balance on probabilities.

What u are saying maybe true in private companies which has seperate code of conduct for its employess but i would be amazed to know if US legal system had found guilt anyone based on probabilities not by being guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

never. balance of probabilities is only used in things like civil suits where a winner must be decided (divorce issues and the like), and even then its avoided as much as possible.

furthermore, maybe it's different in the us, but i've never heard of a company disciplining a worker based on the "balance of probabilities" in a case with only hearsay and he-said-she-said evidence... especially with something as important as a discrimination case? those are taken very seriously, as they can seriously harm someone's career, and allowing them to go through simply because one side is deemed more believable than the other would be absolutely unheard of.

granted, the uk doesn't have a bill of rights or anything equivalent to it, so its entirely possible that the culture there is different. i have heard before that in accusations of libel in the uk the burden of proof falls on the defendant, not the accuser.

It's different in England. Balance of probabilities is definitely enough for some cases.

Also it's not arbitrary, the evidence used has to be convincing and reading the report it kind of is.

Charrua wrote:What Suarez did shows that he does have pride. Hes not going to bend like a bitchass because of what the media says or tells him to do. Its the way were raised I see no wrong with it

This. Evra does a good job of playing the victim. Evra's reaction is what caused the "tension and bad atmosphere" of the match.. When Bridge refused to shake JT's hand, nobody made a meal of it like here.

Suarez served an 8 match ban, for which he is obviously angry about and feels he's innocent. Now the media and fans are all over his ass, and Evra is being portrayed as a poor poor victim. It's pretty :lol!: worthy

How can anyone even buy this at all?? As a neutral, I'm proud of Suarez for what he did. You can't just force people to kiss and make up... There will be bad blood between them and nothing is going to change that, especially not a petty handshake.

Also SAF should just keep his red nosey ass out of people's business and worry about his own club. LFC have enough problems of their own.

if you think there's enough proof for beyond a reasonable doubt, you have serious problems understanding the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. hope to god you never sit on a jury in a case i'm in.


jesus, for the last time...THE REPORT DOESNT REACH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE TO

comprende essay?

I think Evra deserves a punch in the face.

You sue a guy and he's found guilty and then you grab his hand when he refuses to shake it? GTFO!

That's a real pussy move, instead of being a man and leave it be he still wants to milk the situation. Jerk.

owever, juries in criminal courts in England are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is "reasonable doubt" about a defendant's guilt. Indeed, a recent conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The conviction was upheld but the Appeal Court made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty"



now jog it on...

http://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/01/proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-not-proof.html

india... i hope youre not the 1 on jury duty beautiful game..

Still gutted that Agger didn't smash the drug addict...

cyberman wrote:
if you think there's enough proof for beyond a reasonable doubt, you have serious problems understanding the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. hope to god you never sit on a jury in a case i'm in.


jesus, for the last time...THE REPORT DOESNT REACH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE TO

comprende essay?

did you not see what i quoted in that post? i was responding directly to someone who said it fulfilled both conditions in his mind, and that someone wasn't you. calm down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/12/luis-suarez-issues-apology-patrice-evra

Silly Suarez obviously hasn't looked at it frame by frame to see that he wasn't at fault at all

Respect to Suarez for the apology.

he isnt really sorry but has been forced to offer that apology smfh

Sincere or not at least he's drawn a line under it rather than make it worse like yesterday did.

Meh, an Apology not made in front of a camera hostage style is not really an apology

well looking at that shairmans statement they werent very happy with him(suarez) either, so he was in a way told to do that apology kinda like Pepe, but who cares IF he really moves on then thats a step forward

Luis Suarez is a repeat offender anyway, i take his apologies with a pinch of salt.

I guarantee that by next year he will be involved in another incident. Now that EPL players know how sensible of the mangina he is, he will get pushed everyweek until he snaps again.

Give me +1 if you, too, are already totally bored by this episode, or give me -1 if you're not bored by it :arrow:

lol trying to cover his face like a wimp

Art Morte wrote:Give me +1 if you, too, are already totally bored by this episode, or give me -1 if you're not bored by it :arrow:

gave you -1 because this isn't youtube

Source- Sepi.