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: vincent Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:40:05 -0400
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
References: "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> :In message , Fred J. McCall
> : writes
> :>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> :>:A homicide victim dies. Is the homicide murder? Manslaughter?
> :>Depends on the circumstances. But note that it does NOT depend on
> :>what happens at trial. The facts don't change.
> :How are the facts brought to life? At the trial. Therefore it depends
> :_completely_ upon what happens at the trial.
> The facts aren't "brought to life". The facts are. They are merely
> examined, such as they may be known, at trial. This is the difference
> between being guilty of the crime (in fact) and being FOUND guilty (in
no guilt is a judgment, not a fact
Be it therefore enacted . . . . That if any Person being a Citizen or
Subject of this State, or of any of the United States of
America and abiding or residing within this State, shall maliciously
advisedly and directly by preaching, teaching, speaking,
writing or printing declare or maintain that the King of Great Britain hath
or of right ought to have, any authority or
Dominion in or over this State or the inhibitants thereof, or shall
maliciously and advisedly seduce or persuade or attempt
to seduce or persuade any inhabitant of this State to renounce his or her
allegiance to this State or to acknowledge
allegiance or subjection to the King or Crown of Great Britain . . . and be
convicted thereof shall be adjudged guilty of
Felony and shall suffer the Pains and Penalties prescribed by Law in Cases
of Felony without Benefit of Clergy
Laws of the State of N.Y., 1781 (4th Sess.), c. XLVII, 189.
The criminal law as we know it today evolved in the 13-15th centuries See
> Identified. What actually happened does not change due to mistakes or
> ignorance in court.
Sure but what happened is not the same as guilt
> Yes, the law varies from place to place. If I violate the law IN
> FACT, I AM guilty. If I get caught and convicted, I am FOUND guilty.
> Consider this simple thought experiment. Suppose that I am indeed in
> your hypothetical jurisdiction where defense of property is not
> allowed and I shoot the burglar. We then go to court for trial and I
> further lie under oath about what happened, explaining to the court
> that I was in fear for my life and therefore shooting him was simple
> self defense. Suppose further that the court believes my statements
> contrary to the fact and finds me innocent.
and how is the stae of your mind "preserved" how would anyone know what you
your position depends on the existence of immutable mental impressions that
are not recorded without recording.
you are talking theology (sin) not crime (guilt)
back to schroedingers cat
> Your position is that no crime was therefore committed.
> My position is that TWO crimes were committed; the original shooting
> and the perjury to cover it up. I merely wasn't caught committing
> Your position is that taken by criminal sociopaths. There is no
> 'fact', no 'right' and no 'wrong', no violations of any kind, and the
> only crime is being caught and convicted.
This has noting to do with sociopaths. Right and wrong are not primary
legal concepts. the legal concepts are lawful and unlawful. Right and wrong
are for theologians and ethicists.
> :>:How does any of what happened emerge and how are the facts learned?
> :>It's irrelevant to what actually happened. Someone can be CONVICTED
> :>of murder and not have committed murder. Someone can be ACQUITTED and
> :>have committed murder. Those are FACTS.
> :So, how do you detect these crimes?
> Detection is irrelevant to what happened.
actually its critical
> Your argument is that a
> tree falling in the forrest creates no compression waves in the
> atmosphere if no one is there to hear it. I maintain that the
> compression waves still existed, regardless of the presence of a
But does fear exist if you don't now about the tree. See below
> In other words, it's the eyes of Heisenberg, but Schroedinger owns the
The critical point which you keep avoiding is the social nature of a
statement of guilt and the role of the determination of the state of mind.
In the 13th century our legal system started to separate the criminal from
the civil tort law. the key invention of the criminal law was the Mens REa"
or or mental state that is required for all true crimes.
you keep referring to the state of mind as a fact. what makes it a "fact"?
Science deals with facts. every fact has an associated measurement system.
If I had been near the tree falling in the widerness I owusl not have been
is this a claim of a fact?
is the perosn lying?
how wouls anyone know?
how are states of mind declared to be "factts"
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of