The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:58:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:58:22 PDT
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:> "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
:> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:> :> But only with regard to CONVICTION. There is no effect on the reality
:> :> of whether they actually committed the crime or not. It is this
:> :> latter claim of yours that I find simply astounding.
:> :Without a trial you haven't even established a crime
:> :was committed
:> You may not have legally established it, but the facts don't change
:> just because you hold the trial.
:> It is this latter position with which I disagree. Facts are facts.
:> The only place reality actually changes when you look at it is at the
:> quantum level.
:But an act only becomes a crime when a court confirms
Well, no. An act becomes a crime when it contravenes laws passed by a
legislative body or ordinances passed by various other legally
constituted bodies. What a court says has nothing to do with whether
an act is ACTUALLY criminal.
:If someone is found dead in my house with a stab wound
:all that is known as a fact.is that
:a) The person is dead
:b) He or she had been stabbed
:The determination of the casue of death may be made
:by a pathologist but only a court can decide if the
:act was a crime
:It could be accidental, suicide, a cold blooded act of murder or
:self defense. Only the courts can decide this.
No, a full knowledge of the facts determines if the act was a crime.
If the court does not have full knowledge, it may make a mistaken
interpretation. Or the court may cut a deal. Or the jury may just
decide to ignore the law and refuse to convict anyway.
Consider the following situation. Suppose that I murder someone; just
walk up to them, stick a pistol in their mouth, and pull the trigger.
Suppose further that the police search my house and find the gun with
matching ballistics and my fingerprints. Suppose further that,
confronted with this evidence, I confess.
Has a crime been committed? I would say yes, and it is obvious before
any of the facts are known. You would apparently say that no, no
crime has been committed yet.
Now, suppose further that the evidence used by the police to obtain
the search warrant was illegally obtained and that the court rules
that the finding of the weapon and everything stemming from it,
including my confession, are fruit of the poisoned tree and not
admissable in court. There is no other concrete evidence and the
Have I committed a crime? My answer is yes, I have committed a crime
(and have gotten away with it). Apparently, your answer is that I
have committed no crime because the facts as the court allowed them to
be known were insufficient to convict.
We are going to disagree on this, no matter what arguments you put
forward. The ACTUAL facts and the ACTUAL law are the determiners, not
what the court decides.
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of