MSU158 2,038 Report post Posted June 9 I have no issue conceding semantics on the word exonerate. My understanding was exonerated meant you are “absolved” of wrongdoing. Once you are found not guilty you are in fact absolved of that crime FOREVER. To me that fits. However, I am not going to die on this hill. 1 Mike Parrish reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mphillips 1,821 Report post Posted June 9 6 minutes ago, MSU158 said: I am not going to die on this hill. What makes this hill special? : ) 1 Mike Parrish reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 6 hours ago, MSU158 said: Congrats to your daughter! Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 3 hours ago, MSU158 said: Not really in this case. Double jeopardy essentially does in fact exonerate him criminally. He cannot be tried again for those charges... Edited to add: I made sure to say exonerate criminally. Because, you would be correct, if I just said exonerated. Because, he still could be found guilty of wrongdoing and was civilly. Adding 'exonerate' to the list of words you don't understand. 1 HurricaneWrestling2 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, MSU158 said: I have no issue conceding semantics on the word exonerate. My understanding was exonerated meant you are “absolved” of wrongdoing. Once you are found not guilty you are in fact absolved of that crime FOREVER. To me that fits. However, I am not going to die on this hill. dictionary.com is your friend. ProTip: It doesn't mean that. Words mean things... Edited June 10 by Mike Parrish Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 7 hours ago, dman115 said: You literally just said so in the freaking post right before the one you just posted....SMH... Then you should have no problem quoting my post and proving me wrong. Chop chop. Quote how about you show us all the "facts" you have that the people investigating the coaches didn't do their job because no criminal charges were filed....or do you not need to because in a completely unrelated sexual abuse case people may have in fact dropped the ball during that investigation...so essentially your stance is, because some people screwed up in the Nassar investigation (and they should be held accountable), every single investigation from that point forward can't be trusted?? Once again, you are trying to frame the conversation to try to force a burden of proof that doesn't exist. I have to wonder why you're implicitly defending the kiddie diddlers and athlete murderers here. Quote Or how about your accusation that MSU is shutting down any discussion...please show me where he, or I have done that? As above. Try sounding the words out. Maybe find someone nearby with a middle school reading level to help you work the dictionary. Quote Or when someone says they feel differently and can poke holes in your logic, or lack there of, that hurts your feelings and you accuse them of "shutting you down"? Maybe take some deep breaths and try and read what MSU has written to try and truly understand what he is saying and why he has the stance he does (he says it WAY better than I do)?? You still may not agree, and that is totally fine, but maybe you won't try and accuse him of wanting to support a sexual predator, or he and I are the reason these evil people get away with it for so long. It's what it looks like. The many, many people around Nassar knew or should have known. Five have been charged with felonies. Civil lawsuits have succeeded and are ongoing. The verdict for rational people is that the burden of proof of liability has been reached. But you two do you two. Just sayin', it doesn't make either one of you look good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackwebster 334 Report post Posted June 10 11 hours ago, Mphillips said: What makes this hill special? : ) You two shoulda read the room on this one. Not the best expression to use in this particular thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MSU158 2,038 Report post Posted June 10 11 hours ago, Mike Parrish said: Adding 'exonerate' to the list of words you don't understand. Seriously? I concede and this is the route you go? To be clear, it may not be the most used way in legal proceedings, but by this literal definition, how was I wrong exactly? Would love to hear this detailed ex·on·er·ate /iɡˈzänəˌrāt/ Learn to pronounce verb 1. (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case. "they should exonerate these men from this crime" Similar: absolve clear acquit declare innocent find innocent pronounce not guilty discharge vindicate exculpate Opposite: charge convict 2. release someone from (a duty or obligation). Hell even “pronounce not guilty” is used as an example… Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TwoPointTakeDown 21 Report post Posted June 10 10 hours ago, Mike Parrish said: Then you should have no problem quoting my post and proving me wrong. Chop chop. Once again, you are trying to frame the conversation to try to force a burden of proof that doesn't exist. I have to wonder why you're implicitly defending the kiddie diddlers and athlete murderers here. As above. Try sounding the words out. Maybe find someone nearby with a middle school reading level to help you work the dictionary. It's what it looks like. The many, many people around Nassar knew or should have known. Five have been charged with felonies. Civil lawsuits have succeeded and are ongoing. The verdict for rational people is that the burden of proof of liability has been reached. But you two do you two. Just sayin', it doesn't make either one of you look good. Who is Col. Jessup in this scene? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HurricaneWrestling2 902 Report post Posted June 10 1 hour ago, MSU158 said: Seriously? I concede and this is the route you go? To be clear, it may not be the most used way in legal proceedings, but by this literal definition, how was I wrong exactly? Would love to hear this detailed ex·on·er·ate /iɡˈzänəˌrāt/ Learn to pronounce verb 1. (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case. "they should exonerate these men from this crime" Similar: absolve clear acquit declare innocent find innocent pronounce not guilty discharge vindicate exculpate Opposite: charge convict 2. release someone from (a duty or obligation). Hell even “pronounce not guilty” is used as an example… Apparently, 'concede' also needs to be added to the list of words you don't understand. 1 Mike Parrish reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MSU158 2,038 Report post Posted June 10 21 minutes ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said: Apparently, 'concede' also needs to be added to the list of words you don't understand. Look, why would I? No point in sticking to it if I get blasted for doing so? Especially in a case where I didn’t use an antonym. I mean I used the word that a jd phd law professor just answered saying the words acquittal and exonerate are essentially commonly interchangeable the only difference is nuance. And I now get why no one on here will concede anything. I will add over the professors response when I get back to my laptop later today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Plasmodium 2,309 Report post Posted June 10 Hmmmm. After doing my own research, conclusion is MSU158 can speak English. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MSU158 2,038 Report post Posted June 10 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said: Hmmmm. After doing my own research, conclusion is MSU158 can speak English. Very astute observation and conclusion. Edited June 10 by MSU158 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 11 minutes ago, MSU158 said: Look, why would I? No point in sticking to it if I get blasted for doing so? Especially in a case where I didn’t use an antonym. I mean I used the word that a jd phd law professor just answered saying the words acquittal and exonerate are essentially commonly interchangeable the only difference is nuance. Dig that hole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said: Hmmmm. After doing my own research, conclusion is MSU158 can speak English. Myna birds can speak English too. They don't understand the words they're using either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MSU158 2,038 Report post Posted June 10 Just now, Mike Parrish said: Dig that hole. I am happily walking on water as I type this. There is no hole in sight! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Parrish 383 Report post Posted June 10 Oh, this is so painful. I feel reflected embarrassment when I read your posts. Let me help here so we can end this debacle of compromised comprehension. https://howtojustice.org/going-to-prison/what-exonerated-of-a-charge-means/ Quote What Does It Mean to Be Exonerated Of a Criminal Charge? A court can find you guilty or not guilty of a crime. But getting exonerated of a criminal charge is different. This means that the court has overturned your conviction and dismissed all of the charges against you based on new evidence. It means the court recognizes your innocence. Is exoneration the same as an acquittal? An exoneration and an acquittal have similar outcomes. But they are different concepts. An acquittal occurs when the court finds you “not guilty.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that you are innocent. It means you were charged with a crime but the jury or judge does not believe you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, they will find you “not guilty.” And you will be acquitted. You get exonerated after a court has already found you guilty. When the court exonerates you, it dismisses all of the related charges against you. Unlike being found “not guilty,” it means the court has found you innocent. How can you get exonerated? There are several reasons that a court might exonerate you. New evidence that proves your innocence. Sometimes new evidence can prove that you did not commit the crime that the court convicted you of. One common example is DNA evidence. Another person confesses to a crime. If a person confesses to the crime that you were convicted of, the court may exonerate you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TwoPointTakeDown 21 Report post Posted June 10 21 minutes ago, MSU158 said: Look, why would I? No point in sticking to it if I get blasted for doing so? Especially in a case where I didn’t use an antonym. I mean I used the word that a jd phd law professor just answered saying the words acquittal and exonerate are essentially commonly interchangeable the only difference is nuance. And I now get why no one on here will concede anything. I will add over the professors response when I get back to my laptop later today. Why take the time to even consider the possibility of being wrong, uninformed, or bias on an issue? Let alone admit it? Asking for honest discussions, might be a bridge too far when victory is as simple as 'NUH-UH!' Also, if you and your friends kick that ball in my yard one more time.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
