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 , 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.
so far so good
> This is the difference
> between being guilty of the crime (in fact) and being FOUND guilty (in
the problem is that the first does not exist.
Ther eis no concept of guilt withotu the finding.
> :>:The determination that a killing is the crime of murder is a judicial
> :>:one reached well after the act. What looks like murder can be turned
> :>:into self-defence: what is claimed as justifiable homicide can get you
> :>:banged up for life.
> :>No, the court determination can be changed. What actually happened
> :And how is "What actually happened" identified? In the court.
> Identified. What actually happened does not change due to mistakes or
> ignorance in court.
> :Your concept is marvellously metaphysical, since you insist on an
> :absolutist determination which apparently springs into existence... but
> :cannot then be detected or measured. So what use is it?
> I fear that your interpretation is the metaphysical one. Only reality
> as interpreted through a court exists under your 'rules'. This is
> manifestly silly, as the simplest thought experiment shows.
> :>:If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, are you instantly
> :>:and automatically a murderer?
> :>Around here we call that 'suicide'. If he's in my house and I shoot
> :>him, he self-inflicted by breaking in.
> :Whereas elsewhere you can be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder. It
> :seems these intangible philosophical constructs are extremely
> 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?
> 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
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of