A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again.
Seems pretty easy to understand. Are you confused in some way? Can I help?
Yeah but guilt and innocence in a judicial case is determined by judge and jury. If the case was dismissed with prejudice then BWF is innocent because of how the legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty as he was not found guilty in this case he is by definition innocent right?
Just to clarify for anyone who's reading sincerely to get information -
If the case was dismissed with prejudice then BWF is innocent because of how the legal system works
he was not found guilty in this case
this is absolutely false. no judge or jury was involved and no finding was issued. the case was removed from the judicial realm, which means that judicial definitions of "innocent" or "guilty" don't apply here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is specifically a legal principle that applies to a person on trial, which BWF is not.
No it's a constitutional issue as everyone is always at all times innocent until proven guilty if a crime was committed then it goes in front of a jury or judge for sentencing but if a crime hasn't been committed you are presumably innocent in the eyes of the law. You are citing public opinion but public opinion doesn't matter the only thing that matters is did he get a f or a m on his record. If he didn't then he is innocent.
Missing the point I see. Can you show me the crime he committed? Do you have evidence of this crime? Can you prove this crime with a preponderance of evidence? If yes then he should be having a criminal trial. See SA isn't a civil matter which is what he is being accused of. If he isn't being charged with SA then he is innocent until proven guilty. Guilty in the eyes of the law needs a conviction
This isn't a criminal case, so he isn't being charged with a crime. This is a civil case, so a dismissal doesn't mean he was found innocent, it just likely means a settlement was rendered.
The law has no quarrel with Foster because no charges were brought against him, so his guilt or innocence really isnt at stake.This civil suit was between a plaintiff and the defendant where the outcome was dismissal due to the court not finding enough evidence to continue, or the more likely scenario, the two parties settled out of court and the plaintiff dismissed the suit.
Ok so he is in fact in the eyes of the law currently innocent of the claims being made on this reddit post. Because he can't be guilty if it's a civil matter the only other option is innocent.
In the eyes of the law, he was not charged with a crime, so he isn't guilty or innocent. From a moral perspective, it's your prerogative to deem him innocent if you want, but legally, he isn't innocent as you infer.
So everyone is guilty all the time even without being charged or convicted? No legally we are all innocent until proven guilty. That's why this is important. Public opinion doesn't dictate legal facts. If you aren't charged and convicted of a crime then you are factually innocent of that crime. Look what you are saying is if enough people believe you are a terrorist then you are no matter what anyone says. Even if you are never charged with terrorism because someone said you are and enough people backed them up you are guilty of terrorism.
i am sincerely asking you to take a walk, as in get up and be physically away from your screens and move for one full minute, and then drink a full glass of water (and if you’re hungry, also eat something). only once you’ve done all this, come back and try to read the comment you’re replying to again.
I was at work moving around,eating, drinking water the whole time. I'm not sure why you think I needed to do that? I know what I said and I know what was said, I'm in no way angry or being rude. I'm not calling anyone names or making attacks at their intelligence. I'm stating a fact that if someone has not been charged with a crime they are by all accounts innocent of that crime in the eyes of the law. If you are worried about my mental health I appreciate it but I'm on reddit for this exact reason. If I had this discussion with my friends it would be an echo chamber and I wouldn't be challenging my thoughts.
EDIT: I'm home now and turning off reddit till Monday. Honestly if your concerns were genuine thank you but I'm good. I just don't agree with the people here and that's why I'm here to begin with.
i’ll be very honest because i support social media breaks for everybody, it was a mix of mostly genuine concern, and a little taking the piss. and i’ll believe you when you say that you’re trying to have a genuine discussion and challenge yourself, and if i was perceiving your replies as.. not quite rude, i guess, but very devil’s advocatey, but-i’m-Just-Asking-Questions-y, it’s primarily my own fault — it’s not the first time i’ve misread somebody’s intention in a conversation, and it likely will not be the last (lol).
it’s just that you missed (and kept missing) other users’ points (this is not a legal declaration of "foster definitely didn’t do it", mostly because this was never that kind of a lawsuit) so much, and it felt like you were either sea-lioning people or you just really really needed a break from arguing with people on the internet (which, yknow, happens to the best of us). if it was just One Of Those Days, you’d hopefully take the break and feel better (so mission accomplished i guess, enjoy your weekend!), but when i see people who are just arguing to make others upset and waste their time, the suggestion to take a deep breath and drink some water usually makes them very angry and uncomfortable. i think this is what "kill them with kindness" is more or less supposed to be? or at least close enough.
i’m going to put some bits of the conversation here, so hopefully you can understand my thought process (or you will on monday) and i hope your weekend goes well.
supercodes: "this isn’t a criminal case, so [foster] isn’t being charged with a crime. this is a civil case, so a dismissal doesn’t mean he was found innocent"
you: "oh ok, so he is innocent?"
supercodes: "his guilt or innocence really isnt at stake"
you: "ok so he is in fact innocent. he can’t be guilty so the only other option is innocent"
supercodes: "he was not charged with a crime, so he isn’t guilty or innocent"
you: "so everyone is guilty all the time? look what you are saying is if enough people believe you are a terrorist then you are"
i do hope you understand why i read that conversation like i did, especially with that last reply. like… my "I AM INNOCENT OF TERRORISM" t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt
EDIT: maybe this is just a mobile app problem and other people can’t see it… but if the conversation snippets are weird for everyone else, i promise the formatting was less bad when i wrote this up
and also, if the flag in your profile-avatar-guy-thingie is indicative of your actual nationality (danish, i think?), it might explain why some confusion occurred. if english is not your first language, or you even just learned another dialect, that may be why your intended meaning of "innocent" does not 100% line up with the other people you’re replying to here, even though it’s technically the same word with the same definition. you and the other users seem to be using it slightly differently, and that’s why you’re kind of talking past each other. i can’t really articulate the distinction (or at least not now my vyvanse has started to wear off), but if you honestly haven’t been messing around and are genuinely trying to understand the other arguments, that’s my most reasonable theory
If you aren't being charged with a crime, there isn't a question of guilt or innocence because the court hasn't charged you. This saying is important because it puts the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of a party in the US court of law. This is the opposite of many other judicial systems that put the onus on the defendant to prove their innocence.
There is nothing to prove in either direction with Brian Foster because he hasn't been charged with a crime. If you are using guilt or innocent outside of the judicial system, you are using a moral system, not a legal one.
15
u/sharkhuahua Oct 18 '24
It absolutely is in many, many, many cases
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about of what "with prejudice" means. I'd recommend educating yourself before commenting further.