re: John Terry Racial Abuse Trial

quote:

---

JT: John George Terry, Chelsea and England

---

Ok so I hate this guy a lot. A whole lot.

But that is fricking awesome.

quote:

---

JT: John George Terry, Chelsea and England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok so I hate this guy a lot. A whole lot.

But that is fricking awesome

---

It's in the court documents; absolutely brilliant

quote:

---

So let me ask you this, as a future lawyer, would you have advised Suarez to keep chirping or told him to be like Terry and keep his mouth shut.

---

Obviously I would have told him to keep his mouth shut. I never said what he did was smart. He was a complete idiot when it comes to the practical side of the matter.

That being said, that should ONLY have an effect on his sentence, not his guilt. My issue is their interpretation of the rule they set forth, and how they are being as static as possible with it. This is real life, not a Statutes Annotated Code. Other things come into play, and people have a right to a fair trial, and a preponderance of the evidence standard (since this is a civil case). The preponderance of the evidence certainly didn't prove at all that there was any intent behind his action (as the FA already stated).

There should be more leeway in regard to the rule, because as it is, justice is NOT being served the way they are applying it.

quote:

---

FTR, I'm not arguing that you did. Just asking your opinion.

---

Gotcha. I didn't think you were, though.

quote:

---

Agreed, but wasn't Suarez given an FA hearing? Since it wasn't criminal there was no "trial". I'm asking here not arguing.

---

Correct. But under the common law, any civil hearing or trial has a burden of proof that must be met before the defendant can be held liable. For any proceeding that isn't criminal, that burden is a "preponderance of the evidence." In lay men's terms that basically sums up to "more likely than not" that the person committed the act. While I don't dispute that he said what he said, I would argue the spirit of the law is totally violated in their static approach to it. The idea behind it is to prevent hatred and racism. If someone says something that may be construed as racist, but actually isn't, no racism is present. This is the approach I think they should take. It preserves the sense of justice, while preventing the wrong the rule was created to stamp out.

EDIT: Basically to sum up my viewpoint: It should be a question of intent, not negligence.

quote:

---

EDIT: Basically to sum up my viewpoint: It should be a question of intent, not negligence.

---

I can agree with that. Since the Suarez hearing was behind closed doors, it's much harder to know what was said. He may have went all Samuel L Jackson in "A Time to Kill". Obviously it is easier to follow a public trial.

Speaking of, Patch, Do you have a link to the transcripts? I've been looking everywhere and can't find anything. I did see a tweet that said something similar to what you posted, but it said he was asked his name and occupation.....or something similar.

quote:

---

Another great term noted in the courts documents was "knobhead". Love it

---

That's "fricking Knobhead"......

ETA:It must be awesome hearing grown men keep saying count. Although apparently in England that word is used often.

quote:

---

Can't we all just agree that Terry is a legend# and #best captain ever? Let's bury the hatchet for autig's sake, you guys.

---

Yes we can.

Why? I read it. He's mad that there were differences in the two cases. One which was to be carried out in court and the other with the FA. I never heard of the court granting continuances to allow Terry to play. A court date was set and Terry was there. Is that his fault? Another glaring piece left out was the fact that Suarez dug his own grave thumbing his nose at the FA. Terry chose to STFU.

I get that, but can it not be argued that because they are in different forums, they were handled differently. Or that because Terry refused comment and Suarez kept talking that the amount written would be different. There isn't a right or wrong answer here, however, I feel the article throws decent points but doesn't do anything to play the middle. The article was as one sided as he claims the media has been. Which I find kind of funny.

You are missing the point. It has nothing to do with the cases. The majority of that information is used as filler for the article. The core issue the writer has a problem with is how both situations have been handled by the media and his fellow country-men. It's flat out hypocrisy at its finest.