well Im not arguing with him atm , it was an old argument I had but now I saw a vid from Zed and thta lawyer and I was hoping he will come with some arguments but he only showed what stupid things the laweyer did

i think joe tried to say a palindrome but he failed

Dont spoil the video but ok

but he was making the case that since we put them under arrest we pressume they are guilty adn they have to probve thier inocence

Yeah thats stupid because we shouldnt lock them up untill there is hardcore evidence that they are guilty

he was saying that when we arrest them we assume they are guilty

foxxo , i don't ... know what you're talking about , can you tell us again what you're talking about ?

No. We arrest people to charge them. @The_Foxxo the easiest argument, from a legal standpoint is who holds the burden? Nobody needs to prove their innocence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense can literally sit there and poke holes throughout a trial.

srsly , i don't get it

I was talking

about the stupid notion

of

guilty until proven innocoent

isn't that how the media treats trump?

@The_Foxxo i mean we do but if we see something like video evidence and witnesses i think er have enough evidence

Also the media absolutly hates trump

Or atleast some of them

Fox likes him

ye ye we know the media hates trump not new

but before they get to the trial

their arrest is based on them assuming he is guilty

thats waht he was sayin

So who's going to cunity college?

@The_Foxxo No. Arrests are made based on probable cause.

Lol

is that what they call it?

@Froski explain to me probable cause like I eat glue for a living and liek Biden

Its what joe calls it

<:YouKnowTheThing:723005092764319776>

I've got to go see you guys around

Probable Cause is the standard that police officers follow when making an arrest. Basically, what their report needs to include. For example, in a drunk driving case, they must show that they had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, for example, swerving or speeding. Then the probable cause would be the evidence showing that there is a case, such as failed sobriety tests, blood alcohol content, etc. The officers simply arrest for charging, then 9 times out 10, the person is released or given a bail amount to pay.

Then when charged, a prosecuting attorney has the ability to look at the report, ie look at what probable cause there was to make an arrest, then determine whether the facts or potential evidence point to a guilty conviction by a reasonable doubt.

> No. We arrest people to charge them. @The_Foxxo the easiest argument, from a legal standpoint is who holds the burden? Nobody needs to prove their innocence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense can literally sit there and poke holes throughout a trial.
@Froski thanks bot

hey JoeMama

Hey dante

Later

Yes

@Froski thanks mate

> @Froski thanks mate
@The_Foxxo *thanks bot

Yeah. It may be simplified by an internet search.

Yeah yeah whatever

*pls don't kill me*