Comments by "" (@fedup6969) on "WBIR Channel 10"
channel.
-
63
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This just goes to prove how ignorant most Americans are. I find it deeply troubling that a significant number of my fellow Americans chose to elect a convicted felon and a sexual predator as president. Donald Trump will now be recorded in history as both the 45th and 47th president, and despite numerous warnings, he is likely to govern in an authoritarian manner. This marks the unprecedented occurrence of a criminal defendant attaining the nation’s highest office, which is utterly unacceptable. For those who may not be aware, Trump was convicted in Manhattan earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made prior to the 2016 election to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. As the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a felony, he is set to be sentenced on November 26th. Additionally, Donald Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting Ms. Carroll and for defamation. The jury had sufficient evidence to potentially find him liable for battery concerning rape, sexual abuse, or forcible touching, ultimately determining that he was liable for sexual abuse. The forthcoming four years pose the most significant threat to American democracy since the Civil War; should it endure, it will undoubtedly emerge battered, bruised, and scarred from the struggle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Back in May 2021, I lost my beautiful, senior dog to cancer that I had for over 14 years. So, I decided to do what I thought was a selfless and caring act of becoming a foster parent for the Maryville Alcoa Animal Rescue Center (MAARC). Although I have rescued countless of animals throughout my lifetime, I had never worked with an animal shelter before. So, this new adventure is very unfamiliar to me.
Out of all of the stray animals that I've ever taken in, I've always provided shelter, medical, and loving care for and it was always done completely out of my own pocket. The ones that I couldn't find loving homes for, I kept for myself and they became life-long, four-legged, family companions for myself and my children. I've had great success in rescuing both dogs and cats and even a newborn raccoon, among many other wildlife animals. My own personal pets have lived anywhere from 14 to 16 years of age. I have taken pride in leading by example for my children and have taught them to show animals as much compassion and love as they would do for any fellow human being. So when I told them what I was planning to do as far as becoming an official foster parent for a local shelter in our community, they were very encouraging and thought that it was a great idea. Boy, were we wrong!
When I first started inquiring about how to become a foster parent for local animal shelters, back in October, 2021, I was told by one of the volunteers that one of the shelter's rules for becoming a foster parent was that my own personal pets were required to all be up-to-date on their vaccines, which requires even your indoor cats (that have never been let outside because I know of the dangers lurking out there) to be vaccinated against rabies. Another requirement was that you must have a separate room or garage area for the fosters to stay in so that your own pets are less likely to become sick if the foster animal had a health issue that could be transmitted to other animals. Which is totally understandable. So, I made the appointment with PPAWS and got the required vaccinations.
After several attempts to inquire about taking in a shelter animal, I was sent multiple text messages updating me on possible animals that were in need of a foster home. I was sent pictures and identifying information about these dogs and was told that I could go to the animal shelter and take a look around at the animals that were in need of a temporary home.
The first red flag I met, was upon arriving at the shelter, I was greeted by one of the two animal control officers where I proceeded to have a conversation with him to explain why I was there. He immediately warned me that MAARC rescue group had been previously threatened with animals abuse/neglect charges brought against them because it was brought to the attention of animal control that MAARC was allowing animal hoarders to foster their shelter animals. He stated that as long as I've never had animal abuse/neglect charges brought against me, that there wouldn't be a problem with becoming a foster parent. Wrong again.
So after a couple weeks of waiting to hear back from the shelter and multiple inquiries asking about whether or not MAARC was in need of a foster, I was repeatedly told that there was no animals at the rescue that could safely be placed outside of the shelter because the dogs that they currently had in their care was too aggressive to be placed into a foster home until they went through very expensive and extensive training ($2,500-$5,000) for their aggression.
Fast forward to this morning...I texted three different phone numbers that I had in my contacts that I had marked as "volunteers" for the rescue group and asked about their recent Facebook post notifying the members of their page that foster parents were needed and how the members of the community could go about getting in touch with them on the foster home procedures. I again, texted them and asked if there was an animal that needed a home. One of the volunteers texted me back and told me that the only fosters needed were for "special need" animals and that my profile didn't fit their particular needs at the moment. When I asked about what "special need experience" was needed, she wrote back that they only need fosters homes that currently don't have any other pets. Okay, but where is that stated anywhere on their website or Facebook post? Ummm, nowhere.
So she then proceeded to tell me that since I had fallen behind on my dog's rabies shot (late due to all this COVID crap going on) that I may be "disqualified" from fostering entirely. She then began to tell me that because I was asking all these questions that my "attitude had become argumentative and hostile." Are they kidding me? Since when is asking relevant questions being hostile? My God, I just wanted to do a good deed and help out a shelter animal for God's sake!
I then called the rescue group and asked to speak to whoever was in charge. The woman that answered the phone asked for my name and as soon as I told her who I was she told me that she wasn't going to deal with me and hung up on me. I then called back and again asked for whoever was the director of the rescue because I wanted to complain about the unprofessional way for which I was being treated, and again, I was literally screamed at and hung up on.
Needless to say, don't bother volunteering your time, money, or efforts towards that group. They are some very rude and unprofessional people that work there!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teresa8793 You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Posithope You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Lana-xi8mc You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@teresa8793 You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Posithope you're the one that's looking stupid. You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1