"PaoloTCS" wrote in message
et...

He was found **Not Guilty**. He may be innocent, but what the jury found
was that Dr. Sherzer was not guilty.

Long live Chess,

Yes. He got off on a technicality.

StanB

He should go to jail.

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"PaoloTCS" wrote in message
et...

He was found **Not Guilty**. He may be innocent, but what the jury found
was that Dr. Sherzer was not guilty.

Long live Chess,

Yes. He got off on a technicality.

StanB

In article ,
(Crossville Chess) wrote:

He should go to jail.

No, he shouldn't--it was a good decision by the jury, and a really
****-poor investigation by the cops involved.

He was, however, not found "innocent," as other posters have pointed
out, and hooting and hollering as though he were is pretty pointless.
The guy pretty obviously intended to **** a minor that day and was
pretty stoked about it, and there's a lot more than "poor judgement" to
worry about, there.

Then again, I don't have to play chess with him or have him around my
kids, so what do I care?

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis

"Robert Lee" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Crossville Chess) wrote:


No, he shouldn't--it was a good decision by the jury, and a really
****-poor investigation by the cops involved.

He was, however, not found "innocent," as other posters have pointed
out, and hooting and hollering as though he were is pretty pointless.
The guy pretty obviously intended to **** a minor that day and was
pretty stoked about it, and there's a lot more than "poor judgement" to
worry about, there.

Then again, I don't have to play chess with him or have him around my
kids, so what do I care?

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis


Let me try this again. How can there be such confusion over three simple
words?? Innocent means not guilty. Not guilty means innocent. To be innocent
means to not have guilt [ not guilty ]. Get it? If one is guilty, he is not
innocent. If innocent doesn't mean not guilty, what does it mean? Think
about it over night, and I'm sure you will see the light.

In article , "Kenneth C."
wrote:


Let me try this again. How can there be such confusion over three simple
words?? Innocent means not guilty. Not guilty means innocent.

No, they don't. We don't have an "innocent" option in our legal system.
"Not guilty" can mean innocent or it can mean "Boy, did the state ****
up" or any number of other things.

It's not like anybody reasonable is calling for the guy to go to jail,
here. But he's not "innocent," not by any stretch.

This is boring, and I'm killing this thread, now. Like I give a crap
about some pervo professional nerd.

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis

"Kenneth C." wrote in message
...



Let me try this again. How can there be such confusion over three simple
words?? Innocent means not guilty. Not guilty means innocent. To be
innocent
means to not have guilt [ not guilty ]. Get it? If one is guilty, he is
not
innocent. If innocent doesn't mean not guilty, what does it mean? Think
about it over night, and I'm sure you will see the light.



No, innocent means "you didn't do it".

"Not guilty" means "not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You could commit a crime, the state could put you on trial, the jurors could
believe that you may have done it. That you probably did it. But that it
wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The difference is important, and that's why civil and criminal trials have
different burdens of proof (preponderance of evidence versus reasonable
doubt).

AND that's why a judge can optionally issue a ruling of "factually
innocent". If there was no difference, this option wouldn't exist.

"Kenneth C." wrote in message
...

Let me try this again. How can there be such confusion over three simple
words?? Innocent means not guilty. Not guilty means innocent. To be
innocent
means to not have guilt [ not guilty ]. Get it? If one is guilty, he is
not
innocent. If innocent doesn't mean not guilty, what does it mean? Think
about it over night, and I'm sure you will see the light.

If you're looking for a personal recommendation to support your admission to
law school, you will want to ask somebody besides me. You're demonstrably
not bright enough.

Robert Lee wrote in message
...
In article , "Kenneth C." wrote:
Let me try this again. How can there be such confusion over three simple
words?? Innocent means not guilty. Not guilty means innocent.

No, they don't. We don't have an "innocent" option in our legal system.
"Not guilty" can mean innocent or it can mean "Boy, did the state ****
up" or any number of other things.

"Not guilty" means "not *proven* guilty *beyond a reasonable doubt*".

'The guilty fly from those who remind them of their sins, and hate those
who were the partners of their guilt.'
--Charlotte Dacre (The Libertine)

--Nick

ie-rat (Tony D.) wrote in message
...
Actually, the most amazing thing is that a 32 year old man is not mature
enough or sensible enough to pursue relationships with women closer to his
own age. Most likely, he is lacking in social skills and personality.

From what I have heard of him, Alex Sherzer has been involved in (at least
attempted) relationships with "women closer to his own age". I seem to
recall having seen him with Zsofia Polgar some years ago.

However, the actions which precipitated his trial are perverse, whether or
not he was found guilty in a court of law. Clearly, he is what one would
characterize as a 'loser'.

I hope that Alex Sherzer already has 'learned his lesson' in this case.
And I hope that Alex Sherzer's entire future life and work will not be
mischaracterised only as a consequence of his misjudgments in this case.

'Weak as virtues, frail as guilty natures.'
--Fanny Burney (Cecilia)

--Nick

(LeModernCaveman) wrote in message
...
Tony Dilucente wrote:
Actually, the most amazing thing is that a 32 year old man is not mature
enough or sensible enough to pursue relationships with women closer to his
own age. Most likely, he is lacking in social skills and personality.

Nick wrote:
From what I have heard of him, Alex Sherzer has been involved in (at least
attempted) relationships with "women closer to his own age". I seem to
recall having seen him with Zsofia Polgar some years ago.

Didn't one of the Polgar entourage talk glowingly about how Zsofia married
a doctor?

Sofia Polgar married GM Yona Kosashvili, a doctor, after her relationship
(whatever it was) with Alex Sherzer had ended.

Zsuzsa Polgar married Jacob Shutzman (from whom she's now seeking a divorce)
after her relationship with GM Julio Granda Zuniga had ended.

Tony Dilucente wrote:
However, the actions which precipitated his trial are perverse, whether or
not he was found guilty in a court of law. Clearly, he is what one would
characterize as a 'loser'.

Nick wrote:
I hope that Alex Sherzer already has 'learned his lesson' in this case.
And I hope that Alex Sherzer's entire future life and work will not be
mischaracterised only as a consequence of his misjudgments in this case.

I think the government's sins in this case were far worse than his.

Evidently, the jury concurred that the United States government behaved worse
than Alex Sherzer did in this case.

'Those who never have been guilty of any indiscretion are generally people
who have very little active virtue.'
--Frances Moore Brooke (The History of Emily Montague)

--Nick