re: This freeze briarcrest thing is BS

Actually I'm not saying the same thing. Hearsay has nothing to do with evaluating information other than in court. It is a rule designed to attempt, imperfectly, might add, to insure jurors do not assign undue weight to statements made out of court in determining truth of a statement mad out of court. It exists because judges do not trust jurors ability to discern what is reliable and what is not. That is its only function. It has no relevance to determining truthfulness or reliability in any other context, such as evaluating the truth and reliabilty of claims on twitter, or reports that Freeze resigned as the Ole Miss coach. As I metioned earlier, in legal systems that did not rely on juries, there is no hearsay rule. In those systems, judges are expected to use common sense and reason in evaluating statements made out court that may be presented as evidence in s case.

Outside of the courtroom, judgments about truthfulness and reliabilty are not hemmed in by a highly artificial rule like hearsay. Instead we rely on common sense, experience, and reason. Most of what we know is based on second and third hand information, not on direct observation, and often not even on eyewitness testimony. For example you accept as truth that Freeze resigned, but you could not testify in court that he resigned, because it would be based on hearsay. You accept as true what you heard perhaps third hand because you heard from what you likely regard as a reliable source, which also relied on second hand information, which would be hearsay in court.

Decisions about whether allegations of misconduct by Freeze at Briarcrest are true and reliable are not based on technical rules of legal evidence like hearsay, but on common sense, knowledge of the speaker, etc. Hearsay is irrelevant in this context of whether members of the public believe or don't believe, or should believe or not believe some or all of the allegations. You cannot meaningfully use hearsay in evaluation of information as it has no purpose outside of a judicial trial. Hearsay just doesn't apply outside the courtroom. So there is no point in lablelimg something as hearsay when the concept doesn't exist as far as this situation currently exists.

When nonlawyers speak of hearsay, they generally use it in reference to second or third hand information that they deem unreliable, as opposed to any out of court statement that would tend to prove the truth of some given proposition of fact in the statement. The fact is we rely every day on second and third hand information without questioning its truth. We could not function otherwise.

quote:

---

100% false. A victim's account to an officer is the exact definition of hearsay. It's any statement given outside of court. Typically, "hearsay evidence" (victim statement to officer) isn't even admissible in court without the victim being present.

ETA: It is admissible in a grand jury setting in order to indict, but not in a trial setting.

The guy I mentioned earlier in this thread is how I know that to be true. Girl gave a statement to police, they indicted him & arrested him, she refused to go to court, and he walked because her statement was considered "hearsay" and inadmissible.

---

Having prosecuted many murder trials, I think I know the hearsay rule about as well as anyone on here. You are almost saying it right, but still you are wrong.

The victims statement to the officer is not hearsay at all, so long as it is from his direct knowledge. The officer testifying as to what the victim said would be hearsay. It is a semantics thing, but the way you write it is wrong.

I hate rumor mongers. Whenever a moral failing occurs, people pile on with the bullshite.

quote:

---

Attacking the beliefs of millions upon millions of people because a man possibly cheated at his job and on his wife is the epitome of ignorance.

---

Militant Atheists are horrible. Don't engage them, they're as irrational as some of the people they hate.

quote:

---

However, the rumor/hate mongers have an unquenchable desire to roll up and throw as much mud as they can regardless of its merit.

---

Like a bunch of 14 year old school girls.

"Religious Fanatics" very broad there eh. Did some "Christian" hurt your feelings in your past? Why does it bother you that someone else has Faith in God? you seem so insecure. If you haven't read the bible there is a lot of good stuff in there. I would say most of our moral compass as humans have come from that book you speak of. It is not a stretch to say without religion there would be infinite chaos.

quote:

---

Most non religious people are agnostic, not athiest,

---

Most agnostics don't give a damn, like Militant Atheists do.

quote:

---

There is no doubt that the former Ole Miss coach has serious issues that are unacceptable to anyone with a sense of right and wrong. However, the rumor/hate mongers have an unquenchable desire to roll up and throw as much mud as they can regardless of its merit.

---

Yeah, but what if there is merit? If so, it needs to come out. If not, shame on the accusers but heck we've seen enough people fall from grace to know that it's possible there is more. Is it my business? No. But if it's true, I'd like the victims to get their day.