I quite like knowing things about Scots Law, it leads to a lot of interesting conversations with non-Scots, but I've noticed I can't explain how he burden of proof is different in Scots Law.
I read something in a trivia book that said "innocent till proven guilty" isn't a thing in Scotland, but then I also remember hearing about corroboration a few years back, so obviously evidence is key.
Can anyone explain it in basic terms?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 48%. (I'm a bot)
> TALLAHASSEE - Florida became the first state with a law that spells out that prosecutors, and not defendants, have the burden of proof in pretrial "Stand your ground" hearings when Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill Friday.
> The "Stand your ground" bill was fought by prosecutors who say it will make their job more difficult to convict people who commit acts of violence and claim self-defense.
> Only four of the other 21 states with "Stand your ground" laws mention burden of proof - Alabama, Colorado, Georgia and South Carolina - and all place it on defendants.
> Florida changed that in 2005, so that even outside a home, a person has no duty to retreat and can "Stand his or her ground" anywhere they are legally allowed to be.
> Other states followed suit, and "Stand your ground" defenses became much more common in pre-trial immunity hearings and during trials.
> The 2012 killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman opened a debate about the limits of self-defense, and it hasn't let up since Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder after jurors received instructions on Florida's "Stand your ground" law.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Stand^#1 ground^#2 Florida^#3 defendants^#4 state^#5
Post found in /r/news, /r/progun, /r/PublicBelief and /r/inthenews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. P
... keep reading on reddit ➡There are some things that the Bible and the Quran say are evil, like lying or stealing or murdering, where we would all think those things are evil without those books, and in fact we generally do. Other things, like homosexuality, are not so clear.
Now, some people will argue that it’s subjectively evil. For instance, some people value the creation of new human life so highly that it’s evil to have sex that isn’t intended to make new humans, and in this subjective worldview, homosexuals are thus evil.
However, Christians and Muslims don’t say homosexuality is subjectively evil, they say it’s objectively evil and not up for debate. For them, the matter is settled and it is always objectively evil to engage in romantic and sexual behaviors with someone of the same biological sex.
Such a belief must be justified, and it needs to be justified to a very high degree. After all, such a belief leads to actions that also must be justified. Most Christians and Muslims want the law to forbid homosexual marriage and want to take legal action in other ways against homosexuality. That’s fine, if the burden of proof can be met. Christians and muslims also want legal actions to be taken against murderers, and we indeed do since enough has been done to demonstrate that killing innocents is wrong.
However, homosexuality is only objectively wrong if Christianity or Islam is true. If only Judaism was true, then non Jews could be homosexuals (correct me if I’m wrong, but in the OT homosexuality was one of those ‘don’t act like our neighbors’ rules). Otherwise, the majority of moral systems that people use would indicate that homosexuality is morally neutral, which is to say it’s as morally right or wrong as having your favorite color be blue. If people love each other and want to show their love for each other, then most people who aren’t Muslim or Christian support the idea.
It’s on the Christians and Muslims to prove that their religion is true before we should accept homosexuality as evil. It’s not enough to use something like the cosmological argument to try to prove something caused the universe to exist. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a very specific deity exists, and that this deity says homosexuals are abhorrent and evil, and that what this deity says defines the very fabric of reality itself such that disagreeing with homosexuality being evil is equivalent to disagreeing that gravity attracts objects with mass together.
This hasn’t bee
... keep reading on reddit ➡I'm confused about the varying degrees of "proof" required from the different telemed options.
I have night-terrors when I dont medicate, but never went to get diagnosed so as to avoid big pharma solutions to the problem (I've heard horror stories about the different meds and withdrawal symptoms etc)
So I dont have a "doctors note". To some telemeds, that's a closed door. Others make no mention of needing a doctor's note. What gives? Are the ones not saying that looking to collect money before dropping that requirement, or is it up to the telemed person on whether my word is good enough?
Edit: Thanks so much everyone! I've got my appointment and am 1000% less anxious about the details. I hope someone in my boat can benefit from stumbling onto this post in the future!
Hi all, This subreddit supports the notion of "burden of proof."
I know that asking for evidence in a conspiracy theory subreddit is typically unheard of, and there's been a lot of confusion about this, so I'd like to bring some clarification.
Here's the explanation from Wikipedia:
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]
>While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
What this means, is that if you, fellow Redditor, make a claim about something - like say for example, "The Earth is flat" or "Hitler is still alive and living in the Middle East" or "Hillary Clinton runs a child sex-trafficking ring out of a Washington D.C. pizzeria," you as the submitter of that claim have the obligation of providing corroborating evidence that supports that claim.
The community will then vote with their itchy upvote/downvote fingers whether or not they believe what you claim.
Now, there may be times when there simply is no evidence to support the claim, and that is fine. But please understand that no one is under any obligation to believe what you said, merely because you said it.
So as a general rule, if someone says, "Got any proof of that?" it would be wise to NOT reply back with "Look it up yourself, shill!" as its not the other person's job to find evidence to support your side of the argument.
(Also, calling someone a Shill is considered a personal attack and that goes against the rules listed in the sidebar, so please dont do that. )
If anyone has any questions about this, please feel free to contact the moderation team.
Thank you.
First Question: How can one law firm legally force process on validation?
Meaning: If Mark is satisfied with his procedure for validating his OWN clients' identities... How is that not enough? Isn't that how life and the legal world works? Namely the burden - and due diligence - is on Mark to certify his clientele.
If KM feels there are fraudulent submissions, then isn't it simply a matter of KM returning any specific suspect submissions to Mark, and then Mark figuring out how to adapt his own procedures to enhance his own processes... Because it's HIS job to validate his own clients?
Please... tell me what I'm missing here.
Second Question; What real potential damage even exists with fraud?
Let's say some fraudulent or repeat resignation submissions get through... Repeat ones are just annoyance, right?!? It's like nagging... So what? So let's focus on "fraudulent" ones:
What's the damage? Here's a hypothetical: someone spitefully and successfully gets their mom to resign...
Her Bishop is confused because she's both resigned and still coming to church... How hard would it be to validate that she's totally a TBM, unresign her in the system, and then simply flag her membership with a fraud alert? (To mark members who have no current desire to leave, but might be targeted for fraud.)
What else am I missing here?!
Recently Youtube has been referring me episodes of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!" and sadly I have been gobbling it up. IDK why...
But one thing has me very curious and also confused. I'm American, so my legal understanding of the UK system in extremely limited, but I thought some basics between the two would be there, since both are based on "common law".
In the show, quite often, some vehicle will be sitting in front of the residence and the agents will threaten to take it away. Inevitably the debtor or friend of will claim it's not the debtor's car. The agents always say that it doesn't matter, the car is at the residence and the burden of proof is on the debtors and others in the residence to prove it is NOT the debtor's car.
In the US, repossession agents do a lot of investigative work. They have to be 10000% sure a car is legally possessed by the debtor. Because you can't inflict a hardship of repossession on someone else who owe's your firm no debt. It would incur a hefty lawsuit that would be easily won. Also, there are many state databases to cross reference ownership, as you must register your vehicle with your state, along with you insurance, and finally the financing institute. Is it not possible in the UK for these agents to reference anything similar?
It just seems wrong that, even if temporarily, your parent's cars could be taken because you defaulted on loans and had to move back in with them.
Edit: I'm sorry if y'all dislike this question. I genuinely am curious about the difference in enforcement and who the burden of proof lays with.
I know in arguments between atheists and theists, the atheist will say the burden of proof is on the believer to "prove" that there is a God. The idea is that there is no real evidence for God and no real means by which we can detect God's presence so we must positively prove existence. What should be the burden of proof in free will arguments and why?
Three men, a scientist, a magician, and a Christian, are on a stage in front of a large audience. The scientist announces, “I can fly! Watch me!” And he proceeds to strap on a jetpack and fly. The magician says, “I too can fly. Behold!” And he begins to levitate on invisible strings. Finally, the Christian steps forward and proclaims, “I can also fly. Now prove that I can’t.”
I know for a fact I stopped because I asked my wife who was with me just to make sure I didn't roll it. I always stop completely at it. Will my word just be dismissed if I choose to go to court to fight it? I don't want to pay for something I didn't do wrong. Also will I have court fees if I do win or can I ask that those be assigned to the person that made me go to court for no reason?
There's one fallacy I've seen goin' around in regards to, well, a lot of things, but often the implementation of LGBT characters. It's the concept of "making them gay". The concept of bi erasure has been discussed by u/OutcastMunkee better than I could care to. So I'm gonna be talking about something different.
Bisexual characters, or characters who could be bi, are not immediately visible as such. If a character expresses interest in the opposite gender early on, one could assume them as straight. Considering the majority of people are straight, that is to be expected.
However there's this attitude where if it's shown that a character might not be straight, later in the game, it isn't them being bi, it's "making them gay". If they were bisexual, why didn't they show them being interested in both genders earlier?
The answer is simple.
They're doing it NOW, you daft fool.
It's this attitude that implicitly implies the character was changed. And even if that's true, that the change is somehow for the worse. believe it or not, bisexual people do not always advertise their preferences at every waking moment.
"But there's no proof of them being bi!" Yes there is! People saying that just dismiss it because it goes against what they already believed!
I've literally had someone tell me that Blake couldn't be gay because she didn't get aroused while she was on top of Ilia. That Bumbleby "doesn't count" for whatever goddamn reason. It's not introducing a bisexual character, it's "making them gay".
Proof of a character being LGBT is proof of a character being LGBT. Said proof being later in the game doesn't somehow make it less valid. This goes for characters like Blake, Yang, and Qrow (who's still up in the air). When you think about stuff like this, I implore you to think about the reasons why you might feel it's forced, or that it's a negative change. Listen to people without being overtly aggressive, and try to have a healthy discussion about it.
Because when you call for proof, and then ignore proof when it presents itself, you lose all credibility.
Let's consider the concept of 'adaptation', sometimes referred to as micro evolution. Jehovah's witnesses claim that animals can evolve 'within their kind', but cannot 'cross kinds'. For example, no grey wolf has ever given birth to a pomeranian. Any animal can only have offspring relatively similar to itself. However, an organism's offspring will possess a range of characteristics and abilities, some of which will not be shared by the parent organism. This includes the ability to produce offspring with characteristics and abilities that are not shared by either itself or the parent. Thus after many generations the offspring may have characteristics and abilities very different from the original organism. In this manner, a single species became the common ancestor to both the grey wolf and the pomeranian as well as every other breed of dog and wolf.
The word 'kind' is very poorly defined, but is not, by almost anyone's definition, ever confined to a single species, but usually groups very similar species together. So, the typical Witness will concede that creatures like mice, rats, moles, hampsters, squirrels, flying squirrels, prairie dogs, opossums, ground hogs, badgers, beavers, ferrets, etc may have had a common ancestor.
Here's the problem. 'Adaptation' vs evolution and 'Micro' vs 'macro' evolution are false distinctions. To accept evolution of any kind is to accept the mechanism by which evolution occurs, which does not diminish with successive generations. To accept the mechanism but then deny the result shifts the burden of proof to the party making the positive claim. Or in other words, since it's unreasonable to believe that a species could lose its ability to pass down changes to its offspring simply because it's reached some imaginary line, it is now upon you to provide the mechanism which prohibits the 'crossing of kinds'.
)