From: "Paul J. Adam"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:49:52 +0100
Organization: Wholesale Lunacy
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S ()
In message , Steve
>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.
_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)
>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?
You make erroneous assumptions about my opinion. That all are "innocent
until proven guilty" does _not_ mean that "nobody is guilty" - merely
that guilt has to be shown. Metaphysical constructs that can't be
measured or detected are of little value in reality.
>On a simpler level, running a red light is a strict liability offense. That
>is, No intent is required. So either you did or didn't. Which I think this
>whole overly long threat is about.
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.
It's not _that_ strict, is it? Even when it seems obvious and clear-cut
there can be reasons why it's a lesser evil. Should ambulance drivers be
prosecuted and punished for running red lights, when they have urgent
casualties aboard? (Or is 'running a red light' not _always_ a strict
>The world does not operate in a vacuum. In reality people commit crimes (as
>defined in every legal dictionary and law school text and several codes) and
>are never arrested. That does not change the fact the a violation of the
Which is a reason for having juries and counsel, rather than merely
judges. Counsel elicits the evidence, and the jury considers it and
decides if the law was broken.
A poor system, but better than the alternatives.
Paul J. Adam