Jury finds that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

The problem is that if our talking point becomes “Trump found guilty” or “Trump is a convicted sex offender,” his supporters will annoyingly but correctly point out the inaccuracies in those headlines and whine that the media is lying about him and treating him so unfairly blah blah blah. So why even give them the ammunition? Why even allow them the obvious retort instead of just saying “the jury found that he sexually abused Carroll”?

My post was in response to the claim that he was found liable, not guilty.  It doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to use the word guilty if they don't want to.  

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

I guess you could say “the jury believed Trump was guilty of sexual abuse”, because believed isn’t legal terminology.  But you can’t say “the jury found Trump guilty”, because even if “guilty” has a casual meaning beyond the legal frame work, “the jury found” does not.  You would never say “the jury found” outside of decribing a jury’s verdict.  And in this case the jury’s verdict was not that Trump was “guilty” of anything.  

But the word "found" is used in non-legal ways as well: "I found his behavior reprehensible."