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: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: Paul J. Adam wrote:
> > In message , Steve
> > writes
> >> 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
> >> committed.
> > There has been no conviction.
> No Vince has said over and over, no conviction no crime.
Why do you think Giles Corey was willing to be pressed to death for refusing to
plead to a charge of witchcraft?
because without a plea there was no possibility of a conviction and without a
conviction there was no felony
If there was any procedure to "declare" that a crime existed separate from trial
and convection, they would not have had to worry about.
> > _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
> > books)
> This is not Scotland and there are two verdicts available to a jury or a
> judge. G or NG.
> >> So
> >> 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
A grand jury is asked exactly that, and whether any person should be charged
with the crime. .
> 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.
But there is no declaration of a crime separate from the charge.
> > 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
> > acceptable.
> 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.
Who supports this claim. can a person who dies 5 minutes later be declared
guilty of a crime? Suppose you ran the red light after dying of a heart
attack. id the dead person commit a crime?
> 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.
OJ was found liable in a civil tril. Guilt is not a term properly used in the
law of torts.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of