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.
References: In message , Steve
>> Paul J. Adam wrote:
> Learn to snip out text you're not replying to, _please_!
>>> There's a perpetrator out there who hasn't been caught yet, and
>>> needs to be sought out and placed before a court along with
>>> sufficient evidence to convince a jury of his/her peers that there
>>> is no reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
>> Why, based on what you and Vince are saying no crime has been
> There has been no conviction.
No Vince has said over and over, no conviction no crime.
> _Not_ the same thing at all as saying "there has been no crime" (and
> one of the reasons Scotland keeps the verdict of 'Not Proven' on the
This is not Scotland and there are two verdicts available to a jury or a
judge. G or NG.
>> there can be no perpetrator.
> If you find ashes, odds are there was a fire. Was the fire arson, or a
> campfire, or a lightning strike?
That is a good example of why there is an investigation. But the arson
investigator makes a decision about those questions. A jury is not
presented with the ashes and asked to decide if it was lightning or a
campfire. They are presented with an accused person charged with the crime
of arson. They then decide whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused is the person who did it.
> You make erroneous assumptions about my opinion. That all are
> "innocent until proven guilty" does _not_ mean that "nobody is
> guilty" - merely that guilt has to be shown. Metaphysical constructs
> that can't be measured or detected are of little value in reality.
>> On a simpler level, running a red light is a strict liability
>> offense. That is, No intent is required. So either you did or
>> didn't. Which I think this whole overly long threat is about.
> And running a red is easily measured. Unless it's an emergency vehicle
> with blues-and-twos running, or whatever the local equivalent of
> lights and sirens might be, in which case running red lights is
You are not authorized to run a red light. The ambulance doesn't have a
blanket authority to run it either. So the question is not about an
ambulance or police car or fire truck. Not stopping for a red light is a
strict liability offense. Intent is not an issue. The question is if you
run the light, and no officer sees you did you commit a crime(and don't
twist this no lights siren or anything else), no court, no jury, no judge,
just you and the light.
I maintain you committed a crime.
> It's not _that_ strict, is it? Even when it seems obvious and
> clear-cut there can be reasons why it's a lesser evil. Should
> ambulance drivers be prosecuted and punished for running red lights,
> when they have urgent casualties aboard? (Or is 'running a red light'
> not _always_ a strict liability offence?)
>> The world does not operate in a vacuum. In reality people commit
>> crimes (as defined in every legal dictionary and law school text and
>> several codes) and are never arrested. That does not change the
>> fact the a violation of the law occurred.
> Which is a reason for having juries and counsel, rather than merely
> judges. Counsel elicits the evidence, and the jury considers it and
> decides if the law was broken.
Actual that is not what happens. They consider whether the State proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that you did what was alleged in the indictment.
I have had more than one jury tell me after the trial, "your boy was guilty
as sin and we all knew it, but the DA didn't prove it beyond a reasonable
OJ was found guilty of murder in a CIVIL trial. The only difference between
the two trials was the burden of proof.
> A poor system, but better than the alternatives.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of