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: "Brian Sharrock"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:46:40 +0100
Organization: [posted via Easynet UK]
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
> > "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> > news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > >
> > > :it is a difficult concept to grasp , but no, crimes in the legal
> > > :not exist until someone is convicted. for example
> > >
> > > No, it is not a difficult concept to grasp at all. What you appear to
> > > consistently miss is that this is not a court and we're not existing
> > > 'in the legal sense'.
> > >
> > After reading Vince's exposition of 'crime ... do not exist until
> > convicted ...' I now realise where I've (
> > and lots of other people) have gone wrong.THe police forces are all
> > their modus operandi
> > seems to be 'crime reported, find villian, give to 'Justice System' to
> > convict, conviction = case closed'. They're all,
> > according to Vince, wrong! They should start with a conviction and worl
> > to the crime.
> no. you do not find the villain. you find the "suspect" i.e. the person
> accuse of committing the crime. exactly what is the problem with calling
> person a suspect , the accused etc.
I draw to the attention of the readers, that Vince is utilising his
frequent technique of concentrating on one word 'villian' and trying to
divert the topic away from his original statement 'crimes ... do not
exist until someone is convicted ... '. If it makes Vince more happy;
I concede his point and instruct the jury to disregard the word villian
and substitute the term accused. The jury will of course, remember the
elephant and consider that the set of villiams contains a large set of
people who've been accused and a smaller set that've been previously
convicted. My understanding is that a crimes exists when a law is broken
and does not rely on subsequent conviction.
> > My local constabulary was wrong too;- they gave me a 'Crime number'and
> > haven't convicted anyone for a burgulary.
> > However, AFAIK, in my jurisdiction; Coroner's Courts consider facts
> > to deaths and return verdicts of 'unlawful
> > killing' , a crime, without someone being convicted.
> > Vince's mileage, and erudition, may vary.
> That the word criem is used by other people for other purposes does nto
> affectits legal structure.
Not many people that I know use the word _criem_ so I don't know what
purpose it serves. Answer the point about Coroners' Court verdicts
of 'unlawful Killing' does such a verdict have a 'legal structure'?
Take into consideration that such juries are not allowed to name
a suspect, not even who they consider to be the villain.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of