black_wing_angel
Except I didn't say she "must" have done it. I said she
probably done it.
Which you have not demonstrated in the slightest. In fact, everything that I've pointed out that indicated that she probably didn't do it intentionally, you've tried to deny...and it's not like your denials are based on anything rational...because they aren't.
Quote:
Then you're an idiot...
Sorry, there's really no nice way to put it.
Again, not necessarily...considering that, by that time, I'd be spending more energy and time trying to find a basket for the stuff, when I can just rearrange the items to make it more manageable. Besides, we're not talking about "to the point where you're unable to carry it all"...it's more a matter of it being unwieldy to carry it all...which is more about positioning than weight.
Quote:
"Possibly" wasn't. All the "probability" still points to her having full intention, so far as I've seen.
No it ******** doesn't. As I've already been explaining, all the things we know actually point to it being a misunderstanding. In fact, for you to keep up your bullshit of "well, she probably did it" you have to keep assuming that you're being lied to...What kind of conspiracy theory bullshit is that?
Quote:
Then you have no understanding of employment laws.
ANYTHING can be a fireable offense, as long as it's not covered by protections, such as race, religion, etc. A potential misunderstanding is not a protected circumstance.
"Anything can be"...followed by several points of things that aren't fireable offenses. Have you never heard of "wrongful termination?" They don't just cover race, religion and the like...if someone feels they've been wrongfully terminated, for a whole slew of reasons, they can file a complaint. And this is one of those types of situation where the court might actually side with the person making the complaint... So, you have a lot of nerve telling someone else that they don't understand employment laws...
Quote:
I'm fairly sure that trial has not been conducted, yet, since she's still outside of a prison cell.
That, or she got acquitted. Or charges were dropped.
Dude...IT'S A ******** MISDEMEANOR. It's not a felony...it's generally not an offense someone would go to prison for...and in fact, she was ordered to do community service. You can easily look this s**t up instead of just pulling it out of your a**.
Quote:
Records have to have a first offense. Also, just because there's no record, does not mean there's never been an offense. The idea is to not get caught...
Yes...they do need a first offense...however, at her age, it's rare to see shoplifting behavior (as it generally emerges in the formative years)...so this most likely is the first offense...especially in this day and age when it's increasingly harder to shoplift. So I don't buy your "well, maybe she was never caught" argument.
Quote:
And again, tell me when we have something more solid than a lawyer's statement.
That's pretty ******** solid right there. Because if he thought he didn't have a case, and this is the type of thing where it's easier just to plea bargain, he wouldn't have bothered with announcing the excuse. Have you never seen a court room drama? Lawyers are always more concerned with only taking cases they think they can win...
Quote:
Changes nothing. In fact, it actually strengthens her potential alibi.
Which...again, is you starting with the assumption that she must have done it...how about that concept of "innocent until proven guilty," eh?
Quote:
Depends on a
lot of factors, however.
Not as many as you seem to be implying...we don't need to call forensics in on this...in fact, this is such a small claim, that I think a plausible alibi like this is not something that needs so much doubt cast on it. You're being pretty ******** unreasonable.
Quote:
And that's fine. Except that your reasoning lacks a lot of ground.
Dude...what ******** evidence have you shown to the contrary?! I'm at least looking at reports and s**t. I have at least some semblance of the case...you're barely informed at all.
Quote:
Shoplifting is typically not about the prices. It's more often about the thrill. The thrill of breaking the law, and the thrill of trying to not get caught,
Which doesn't seem to fit her behavior since she has no prior record, and no former complaints. In fact, it's more likely that this was just a misunderstanding.
It does under the circumstances. She's not poor. She's got a job. She has no prior record. And the possibility of her being a ditz...which is her ******** gimmick to begin with, and probably not a surprise why WWE went with that because they do tend to look at who you are to make a character for you...it all indicates that she didn't do this intentionally.
Quote:
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You're right...you're not doing anything substantial. You're just making assertions that you have no intention of backing up and then expecting me to try and prove you wrong. If you're going to say that she probably did this with intent, PROVIDE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM. Otherwise, your objection is ******** pointless.
Quote:
Actually, in a court of law, they'd do more than hold up well.
The PW forum on gaiaonline isn't a court of law...and even if it were, that kind of petty hole drilling wouldn't. You're basically just throwing your arms up and saying "still could have done it"...it's not effective.
Quote:
No, I am not convinced of anything. Stop assuming s**t about me. It doesn't help your case.
Dude...it's not an assumption on my part...THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING. And the fact that you are so unwilling to take ANY sort of evidence that contradicts what you apparently want to believe is why I keep pointing this out.
Quote:
I'm only "convinced" that what I've heard so far of her defense, is shaky at absolute best, and a criminal jury would very likely not buy it.
A criminal jury probably would...BUT IT WOULD NEVER GO TO THAT. Again...MISDEMEANOR. And that's if it even goes to trial. You keep saying that I don't know about the law, but you keep making such sweeping assumptions that seem to come from a complete lack of understanding of how the law actually works. Not every arrest goes to trial, and not every trial has a jury. Have you not seen Judge Judy before?
Quote:
Seems more and more like you just don't
get what I'm saying, and are simply reading what you
want me to say. I get that a lot in the ED, so I'm pretty well aware of most of the tactics. You're not exactly debating against a novice, here...
No...I get what you're saying. It's just not rational, and that's a big part of my objection.
Quote:
By an unreliable source. Which is worth nothing. I want something a lot more solid than that.
It isn't unreliable...YOU may not find it compelling, but that doesn't mean it's "unreliable." If you're going to make that claim, then demonstrate that her lawyer, specifically, cannot be trusted. And appealing to "because he's a lawyer" is not a valid excuse, because lawyers don't ALWAYS lie...and in fact, if his client did it...it'd be in his best interest to not say anything and try and push for a plea bargain rather than stating an alibi for a case he could possibly lose...
Quote:
No, I really don't think so.
Then you don't understand what valid means.
Quote:
Alright, let's make this easier.
List and link to those reports.
Considering your complete lack of knowledge on the case, it'd probably be easier for you to just google it yourself...however, I'll be nice and give you a couple links.
1
2
Quote:
And I haven't. No matter how much you want to believe I have, the fact does not change that I have not.
YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY ******** RESEARCH INTO IT! Maybe I'd take your position more seriously if you brought anything substantial to the conversation, but you just keep assuming that you're being lied to...THAT'S NOT ******** RATIONAL!
Quote:
No, it's just Wrestlemania, pretty much all national news outlets (which is free advertising),
explosive social buzz (also free advertising)...
Explosive in that it fizzled out quickly...seriously, that s**t was barely memorable, even going into WM. It's not like they couldn't have found a way to at least punish the guy...which they didn't. In fact, he was given a better position and it wasn't until he concussed Ziggler that they took him out of the title picture. And, again, the point is that the WWE has zero consistency.
Quote:
...and Glenn Beck.
I mean, when the guys had to break ******** kayfabe on their own program, in order to remind people that they were just portraying characters....that's pretty ******** huge. And absolutely
not something that can just be dropped or changed, without a very forceful reason.
...It wasn't something they NEEDED to do...it was something they DECIDED to do because they wanted to make Glenn look like an idiot (which isn't hard) for more media exposure. They could just as easily not done that and continued subtlely mocking him and still got the same amount of exposure...because their breaking kayfabe did nothing to get them more exposure, as it was only wrestling fans who really took notice. And, again, that whole thing was barely memorable...it was here and gone faster than Ryback's push as a championship contender...
Quote:
That much was probably an oversight after the fact. Or maybe he just got a little extra leeway, for whatever reason. It may not be right, but it's not our call to make.
I never said that it was our call to make...however, consistency in the company is a much better attribute than playing favorites and ignoring serious crimes while punishing much more minor infractions....especially when it's a publicly traded company.
Quote:
Yes there are. That...doesn't really change anything.
Yes...it does...because we're talking about consistency.
Quote:
Negative. I meant only that she wasn't involved in anything relevant.
Which is irrelevant because relevancy to the show is ******** subjective.
Quote:
Just being Santino's associate. And not even especially solidly. It was a situation where she could disappear forever, and nobody would really know the difference.
Which is applicable to almost the entire roster...seriously, there may be ten guys who, if fired, it'd be a big deal.
Quote:
I...did not deny anything.
For the last ******** time, Kevin, I simply said that
A LAWYER'S STATEMENT IS NOT RELIABLE!.
NOT NECESSARILY. It may not be COMPELLING. But it can still be RELIABLE. DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S ******** NOT.
Quote:
I did not say "nope. Her lawyer said she didn't do it, so she clearly did." I just said that if someone wants to prove her innocence, they'll need a LOT more than just a statement from a lawyer, who gets paid to convince you she's innocent, whether she actually is, or not.
"It was a misunderstanding" isn't stating that his client is innocent. It's admitting that she did it, but that she didn't do it intentionally...and yes, you are implying that, because her lawyer said it, that we can't take the information seriously, despite all the things that seem to indicate that he was telling the truth.
Quote:
Yeah. I know how the law works. A hell of a lot better than you do, apparently.
Considering you think a misdemeanor charge goes to a trial jury...Yeah, I don't think so...
Quote:
And a lawyer's statement doesn't really have much pull, in a trial.
....YES IT DOES. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ******** TALKING, YOU RETARD! They are there to convince the jury and/or judge that what they're saying is true....If what they say had no relevancy to the case, then there'd be no point to hire a ******** attorney in the first ******** place. You can not seriously be this ******** stupid.
Quote:
...Nevermind. You just don't ******** understand how speculation works...There's no sense trying.
No, I do understand how speculation works...however, speculation isn't ad hoc responses to let you keep your preconceived notion. You aren't being ******** rational, dude.
Quote:
Then your mom's an idiot.
Coming from you after the s**t you've just said, I'm not too bothered by what you think about me or my mom. It's like having a creationist telling you that you ignore reality. It's just painfully ironic.
Quote:
Because that is
especially suspicious.
Actually, it's not. Because once again, you don't have any concept of the circumstances. She has her purse open, right in front of her in the cart, with the greeting cards she intends to pay for sticking out the top...right next to her wallet, so she'd have to see them before she paid for the rest of the stuff. Again, stop with the immediate assumptions, and maybe ask questions FIRST before you jump to your conclusions...
Quote:
Anyone watching the cameras who sees her put something she hasn't paid for into her purse, is
GOING to be on high alert. And the moment she forgets, and walks out without paying for it, they're GOING to assume it was intentional, and a jury is GOING to believe them.
Just like a jury is going to believe forensic evidence that indicates that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, right? Again, juries are ******** stupid...they aren't always going to act rationally, especially when you can pull on their heartstrings...that's why the attorneys are present at jury selection...they're looking for people that THEY CAN CONVINCE...
Quote:
Which has a likelihood of astronomically low value. People very seldom do that. And for that exact reason. Because you have pretty much no ******** chance, in court.
Just because it's unlikely, doesn't make it impossible, especially if that's the sort of circumstance that seems to be what happened...which is what is indicated by everything that's been reported. And it's not a matter of guilt or innocence...we've both agreed that she did it. What we are disagreeing on is INTENT...which is why she had to do a day of community service...if it was intentional, she probably would have had to do more...like 30 days...which is about the norm for a misdemeanor.
Quote:
...Which is actually worse.
Depends on the case...but in this circumstance, if it was the intent of her lawyers to try and prove her innocence, then yeah, it wouldn't be ideal. However, considering her lawyers statements, that doesn't seem to be what the plan was. They probably took getting her off with such a light punishment as a victory.
Quote:
Not always. And most juries are smarter than to buy "whoopsie! I totally didn't mean to walk out with an unpaid for item in my purse / pocket / other location other than where unpaid for items are expected to be"
Have you never seen a jury in action? These are the most easily persuaded people on the planet. Again, look at all the high profile murder cases where the person clearly did it, that ended with them being let off the hook because of the jury...In fact, it takes a lot to convince a jury that someone did commit a crime as opposed to convincing them that they didn't.
Quote:
That's circumstantial, at best. And comes mostly down to various applicable laws regarding admissibility, and burden of proof.
...That's not circumstantial when I'm pointing out that juries are not the most rational group of people...in fact, it's ******** indicative of what I'm saying.
Quote:
That's why an intelligent person does not put items in purses / pockets / other places where unpaid for items do not belong.
Quote:
Have I done some stupid s**t? Absolutely. Have I ever put items I have not paid for, in places where it would be easy for me to forget, and look ridiculously suspicious? No.
I didn't imply that you've been in this exact situation. I'm pointing out that criticizing someone for doing something stupid when no one on the ******** earth is any better is hypocritical at best.
Quote:
My reasons are not wrong. I'm well within my right to be skeptical.
You aren't being skeptical. Skepticism isn't outrightly denying anything that could prove what you want to think wrong...which is what you're doing. In fact, if you were being skeptical, you wouldn't be taking a stance either way UNTIL you had enough compelling evidence to sway you. Your stance wouldn't be "well, she probably did it with intent"...it would be "I don't know if she did it with intent or not."
Quote:
I'm not dismissive of that fact. I'm just greatly aware of how unlikely it is.
By denying every indication that you are wrong...my, how non-dismissive you are...
rolleyes
Quote:
It's entirely possible for me to win the lottery tomorrow, by picking the exact sequence of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. But I honestly wouldn't put a lot of faith into it. Why? Because it being "possible", does not hold up against it being "unlikely".
And you came to that conclusion based on evidence...what ******** evidence do you have that implies that she did it with intent!?
Quote:
Some might, but I'm pretty sure most do not.
They do. In fact, only the more really successful firms offer the "we don't get paid until you do" clause. It's a bad business practice, especially when you have a tendency to defend more guilty people than you do innocent ones...meaning you're more likely to lose more cases than you are to win them.
Quote:
That's their incentive to present the strongest case physically possible. Their paycheck relies on it.
Not paycheck...CAREER. Having more successful cases leads to more people wanting to hire you, which leads to getting more money and more fame, and even, better cases and better clientele. Lawyers are not paid "per win"...this isn't ******** retail commission.
Quote:
Actually, it's pretty smart.
You've done nothing to back this up other than assert it...and I've just explained why it's not. Lawyers end up defending people who are more often guilty than they are innocent...meaning they are going to lose more often than they win.
Quote:
Again, if you only get paid when you win, you have a lot more incentive to win. And it's cheaper for the firm.
They already have incentive to win....winning means you get MORE money. Not winning does not mean that you get no money. And just because something is cheaper, does not mean it is better. If I ran a business where I didn't pay you until you sold something, I'd get a lot less talented employees than someone who paid their employees regularly, and then paid them more when they were more successful. This shouldn't be that hard of a concept to understand.
Quote:
Plea bargains usually come once all hope is lost. Unless there's video evidence, or something concrete against the defendant, they won't typically start with it.
Unless it's a case like this, where they're certain they can bring the charges down...which is what seems to have happened considering she only did a day of community service...
Quote:
I don't know that, though. People do lie. It's "possible", isn't it?
Which, again, is not a ******** rational position to take. I could understand just not being convinced...but to assume that someone isn't being honest just because the possibility exists isn't being skeptical...It's being delusionally paranoid.
Quote:
I'll have to look into that one.
Yeah, it's an interesting case...because even his "alibi" indicates that he did it...and it wasn't until Vince came into the police department with a briefcase (that he left there...the implication is that he bribed the officers) that the investigation was dropped.
Quote:
People have been harping on the WWE for their executive decisions, since at least 2009, when they announced their new PG rating. And that's just on a mass scale. Every decision they've
ever made, has had some sort of resistance. You really thing a bucket full of people bitching about an irrelevant diva getting s**t-canned, is going to rattle their cages?
Where did I say it would....I've only ever stated that they were getting negative feed back. That says nothing about how the WWE should respond...although, THAT IS WHAT LED TO THEM HIRING HER BACK. They were concerned that people would point how inconsistent they are. I don't see why you're objecting to this because this is precisely what happened.
Quote:
Now, when they fired Daniel Bryan, that was a different story. He had a fanbase. A very, very ******** large and vocal one. That's a lot harder to ignore, than maybe 1/100 of that.
Size of the feedback is irrelevant as well, considering I was just pointing out that it was going on...And, in fact, again, the negative reaction is why they hired her back...so your objections are moot.
Quote:
But all of this aside, I would like to see her come back with her entrance theme edited to use police sirens
xd That would be hilarious.
I wouldn't be opposed to that...or even giving her a klepto gimmick. I don't think this is anything she necessarily has to feel embarrassed about because s**t happens. Hell, I've been accused of shoplifting before, and it was a complete misunderstanding on their part.
100
200
100
