I just read Rabbi Hoffman's article. I have no idea what really happened in this case, but I am glad that someone at least is trying to get the plaintiff's side of the story. It seems to me that we were all a bit too quick to believe that this couple is guilty of fraud. The People's Court is not exactly a fair and impartial judicial venue, and the "Judge" certainly does not follow civil court procedure. We can not automatically rely on her "findings" as fact.
When will your post apologizing to the couple you defamed be forthcoming Wolf?I'm sure Rabbi Hoffman can put you in touch with the couple to ask personal mechila.
As I said, I had not yet read the article. I thought it fair, however to post the link to it regardless.That being said, I have now read it. Truthfully, I did not find Rabbi Hoffman's words convincing.Nonetheless, he said that there is more evidence coming. So I will hold the matter in abeyance for now. If it turns out that they are innocent, I will certainly apologize if I have done wrong.The Wolf
"I did not find Rabbi Hoffman's words convincing."So you condemn two religious Jews because "I did not find Rabbi Hoffman's words convincing"??? If you are not certain Rabbi Hoffman is wrong, you certainly had no right to condemn them.
If you are not certain Rabbi Hoffman is wrong, you certainly had no right to condemn them.Hold on a minute!I put up my post *before* Rabbi Hoffman's defense and, more importantly, when I had no reason to believe that ANY defense was forthcoming.If you think I was wrong initially, that's one thing. But don't blame me for putting up a post disregarding R. Hoffman's words before he even said them.The Wolf
You had an obligation to anticipate all the possibilities (that R. Hoffman determined and other defenses) may be possible in their defense, and not condemn them with those outstanding possibilities potentially acquitting them.My point isn't what R. Hoffman determined per se.
You had an obligation to anticipate all the possibilitiesSo then I take it you'll never criticize anyone's actions because there is always a possibility that at some indeterminate future date someone will provide a defense?The Wolf
If the action you want to criticize is defensible against your criticisms, you are prohibited by Jewish law from making a public criticism defaming them.
This is rubbish, Wolf; I'm surprised you're being drawn into this silly argument. You have absolutely no obligation to be "certain Rabbi Hoffman is wrong" before making an observation, based on the facts at hand. Rabbi Hoffman did NOT "prove" anything, according to the grown-up, real-world definition of "proof" (as opposed to the juvenile, heimishe definition, in which any rabbi offering an opinion that jives w/our preferred beliefs is credited as having disproven the opposition). At best, R' Hoffman did offer some interesting food-for-thought.The whole 'dan l'kaf z'chus' thing like, so many other once-noble principles of ours, is misused, abused and just plain distorted, usually in the name of protecting Jews who appear to have done something criminal or unethical.
Agreed. Unless they are demonstrably innocent, we have a right to assume guilt. As JRS indicated, dan lkaf zchus, like other "once-noble principles", is not applicable in the 21st century.
Well... I didn't say the principle of D.L.Z is no longer applicable---it applies when it applies. We could all benefit from learning to reflexively look for a positive explanation before assuming guilt. Great, as far it goes. To me, that would be when simple, obvious logic doesn't clearly run to the contrary.It's ridiculous & intellectually dishonest when people 'believe' the most far-fetched scenarios in defense of any frum Jew, in the name of 'dan l'kaf z'chus'----defenses they'd probably NEVER buy into if they were the aggrieved party.
The so-called "facts-on-hand" is noting more than the conclusion we are making based upon a heavily edited reality show (or do you think that the entire "case" was actually done in less than fifteen minutes).In other words, we have no real, reliable information upon which to base an assumption that this couple was guilty of fraud. We just have a TV show designed to entertain (not even a news show, and we know how reliable THOSE are).Yet, somehow this total of lack of meaningful information is taken for granted to be a sufficient basis to overthrow the mitzva d'Oraisa to be dan l'kaf zechus.The couple who appeared on the show made a serious error in judgement in allowing their case to appear on a TV show instead of going to a normal court. frankly, they deserved what happened to them for that reason alone. But, beyond that serious lapse in judgement, there is no real evidence that they did anything wrong. TV entertainment is NOT evidence.
We don't know the complete story, and certainly can't conclude with total certainty that they brazenly atttempted to commit some sort of fraud, but "no real evidence"? They presented a receipt which was not the one for the wig that was ruined. It is very implausible that, when the judge demanded a receipt for the item in question, they meant to, but didn't look carefully to make sure it's the right one. I'm more careful than that everytime I return something to Target.That's what's called evidence; it doesn't have to singlehandedly prove the totality of what happened. That may not be enough for some people to conclude the distrust the couple's version of the story, fine.But again, there's this tendency to dismiss any cumulative evidence when it's an abstract public case of Jews against the law (i.e. goyim)---but when it's one's neighbor, or the gabbai in shul or the guy at the deli, the same people are quite prepared to "overthrow" the precept of being dan l'kaf zchus.
Georgie herself has confirmed the "judge" lied, and it was in fact her original receipt.
"Georgie herself has confirmed the "judge" lied, and it was in fact her original receipt."oh! Well, that's that, then! If one jew, to exonerate another jew who happens to be a client [albeit indirectly], says a judge lied, there's no doubt that's what happened. As we all know, everyone in the American government---like all goyim---lies constantly.And very often they tell lies which make it seem lke frum Jews have broken the law, which is of course ridiculous.
Ah, yes, I forgot. Jews don't have a chezkas kashrus. The goyim do. Yes, we don't trust a Jew. Especially if a goy says otherwise. Gotcha.
Post a Comment