Fan arrested over hanging blow up dolls at Old Firm match

[craig 5,199]

You might struggle. But as I say you only need to convince.

 

Tbh it's clear to anyone with a brain it was a sash and that's clearly religious intolerance.

 

It should be simple to convince people of that.

 

But that wouldn't suit the political agenda of catholics being the victims in religious crimes.

 

So the press and procurator fiscal won't even acknowledge it happened.

 

If you and Pete were in very few convictions would happen.

 

I repeat they do not have to prove that was a sash. Only convince the sheriff.

 

What on earth will the defence claim it was.

 

There's a burden of proof on both sides.

 

What lawyer ever went in court and won just going you can't absolutely prove that.

 

There's no evidence of that then sure. But we all know there's evidence we've seen it.

 

1. Yes, you "only" need to convince. But as prosecution the onus to convince is greater than is on the defence. Geez, YOU can't even convince Rangers fans on here that it is a sash (when we all would love to send Celtic fans down on religious hate crimes), so what chance do you have of convincing a "impartial jury" ? Is it only a majority you need to convince if a jury ?

 

2. You had FS saying that it isn't a sash it is a colarette.... It also doesn't matter if anyone has a brain or not, the reality is that you have to convince a jury. And seeing as you like to use murder trials as the basis for your assertions, "anyone with a brain knew that OJ was guilty" but the defense managed to convince a jury that there was "reasonable doubt" and he got off. See, it is easier to prove "reasonable doubt" (defense) than it is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" (prosecution).

 

3. Political agenda of catholics shouldn't even come into it. If it is a sash and the reference is to the OO and the OO is a religious organization then it is a religious hate crime. Sounds like your "Catholic victimhood" is an excuse for not getting a prosecution

 

4. Or maybe the PF prefers to bring to court charges that he knows he can make stick and wants to take a win, rather than bring charges that will be difficult to prove and a case he may lose ? I suspect the reality is somewhere in between.

 

5. Very few convictions would happen if pete and I were on a jury ? Nah, we would, I would like to think, look at the case on its merits and decide whether it has cause or not. As I said previously, I know it is a sash/collarette, you do, pete does too. But making charges stick is far more difficult than making the suggestion on a fans forum.

 

6. Proving and convincing.... I believe that you are arguing semantics now. Even a sheriff would have to make a stance on whether he is CONVINCED that the prosecution has PROVEN that it is a sash. Convincing the sheriff actually means you have PROVEN to him that what you state as a prosecution is the truth - ergo, you still have to PROVE to him that it is a sash. Proving and convincing are effectively the same words in this instance.

 

7. The defense can claim whatever they like - they could claim it was an orange Rangers scarf that had slipped. They could claim any number of things. And they can claim whatever they like because the burden of proof isn't on them.

 

8. No, there really isn't. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The defense only need to present reasonable doubt to the proof that the prosecution bring. There is a marked difference.

 

9. No lawyer would just say "you cant absolutely prove that". But any defense lawyer would go into court and say "that isn't a sash" and then concoct some bullshit story that it is a scarf that slipped or such like. And again, the burden to prove him wrong is on the prosecution - it wouldn't be easy for any prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is a sash.

 

10. No, there is evidence that IN YOUR OPINION you saw a sash. I bet that you could find 50,000 Celtic fans who would all say that IN THEIR OPINION it was a scarf or something other than a sash. It isn't conclusive evidence of a sash just because YOU say so GS.

 

And this is what you need to grasp. As I have said more than once before..... you know it is a sash, I know it is a sash, pete knows it is a sash and most on here know it is a sash. But just as many Celtic fans will argue it isn't. And the problem remains that it would be very difficult for a prosecution to prove it is a sash beyond reasonable doubt.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It's a sash. It's a religious crime. It's a cover up.

 

If it was a knights of St Columba sash at Ibrox it would be in every report.

 

Celtc fans may deny it but sheriffs have to be honest celtc fans don't.

 

No right minded honest person could claim it's not aimed at the orange order.

 

If it was anything other than a sash or collarette or whatever you want to call it then the press wouldn't be pretending it never happened.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Plus what goes on in American courts is no example. Have you ever watched making a murderer.

[MacK1950 2,399]

American courts like their gun laws are a joke.