2 ms·
If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing
by singleshot_ 3y ago
If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard.
- lelanthran 3y ago> If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard. Preponderance doesn't mean "a lot", it means "more than the opposing evidence", and during a trial the balance sways between both parties multiple times. There is no presumption of innocence, as all it takes is for one party to make a claim and the other party to not explicitly deny that claim for the balance of probabilities to be in favour of the party that made the claim. If I sue in in civil court, with a claim of "He called me a dirty cheating embezzler, which hurt my relations with my investor" and you simply don't show up, you may lose. If you do show up and refuse to argue your case, you will* lose. If you show up and argue "no I didn't", then the balance of probabilities is back in your favour. It works exactly like the DMCA.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- singleshot_ 3y ago“If you do show up and refuse to argue your case, you will lose.” If a defendant in a civil matter shows up and the plaintiffs case sucks, there is no obligation for the defense to put in a show and the jury (hell, even the judge) could rule in favor of the defendant who is presumed not liable.