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
References: <3D919151.email@example.com> wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :> The facts aren't "brought to life". The facts are. They are merely
:> :> examined, such as they may be known, at trial.
:> :so far so good
:> :> This is the difference
:> :> between being guilty of the crime (in fact) and being FOUND guilty (in
:> :> law).
:> :the problem is that the first does not exist.
:> :There is no concept of "guilt" without the finding.
:> For you.
:> Frankly, this is a character problem on your part, I think.
:personal abuse noted and ignored.
It's not abuse. It's an opinion. Note the "I think" at the end?
:> :> 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.
:> :do you have a cite for this opinion?
:> It's not opinion. It's a matter of the facts.
:then it shoudl be easy to cite a table written in stone, or on paper or even
:elctoricnally that says that guilt exts outsideof the court room and the
:legal sysem can "discover it" like an explorer discovering a new continent.
:It doenst and they can't.
All you have to do is pull your head out of, uh, the courtroom, Vince,
and take a look at a dictionary. You know, that book that defines the
language that THE REST OF US speak?
Main Entry: guilty
Inflected Form(s): guilt·i·er; -est
Date: before 12th century
1 : justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach
of conduct or a crime
Note that it doesn't say convicted. It says "justly chargeable",
which means that the person has in actuality violated the law, whether
or not the court ever figures that out.
:> :> 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.
:> :> Your position is that no crime was therefore committed.
:> :the facts are the facts, but no crime is declared
:> Declared is not the same as committed. Have one or more crimes been
:> COMMITTED in the case described above, yes or no?
:you are "convicted" of a crime by a court
Yes, you are, but that is not responsive to the question. Were one or
more crimes COMMITTED in the case described? Yes or no? It ought to
:> Now, if one or more crimes have indeed occurred, even if not
:> 'declared', someone is obviously guilty of committing them, even if
:> never charged and convicted.
:you logic is false. you are begging the quesion by starting by assuming the
:answer that you msut demonstrate, ie. that a crime has occurred. events have
:occurred. we simply do not knwo if a crime has occurred.
Of course we do. We know precisely what the law says. Given all the
facts as things actually occurred, we know whether those events
contravened the law. It's really quite simple, if you just stop
trying to avoid the question.
:ill use an analogy. when is a work of art "finished" It is finished when
:the artist declares it is finished. If the artist dies begfore making the
:declaration. we have no idea if it was finished. crimes are the same kind
:of declaration. its not very complicated.
Using an inappropriate analogy is not exactly a winning tactic. Can
you point to a book or set of books that defines 'finished' for a work
of art? I can certainly point to such things when it comes to what
are and are not violations of the law (what all of us but Vince call
:> We seem to be getting somewhere here, which leads me to believe you
:> will decline to give a yes or no answer to the question and we will
:> instead see more vocabularic obfuscation.
It wasn't abuse. It was a prediction. A prediction which you have
now shown to have been correct.
"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