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: "Paul J. Adam"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:35:44 +0100
Organization: Wholesale Lunacy
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S ()
In message , Steve
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> _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
>This is not Scotland and there are two verdicts available to a jury or a
>judge. G or NG.
Whereas not everyone is as absolutist. Entire nations see flaws in your
>> If you find ashes, odds are there was a fire. Was the fire arson, or a
>> campfire, or a lightning strike?
>That is a good example of why there is an investigation. But the arson
>investigator makes a decision about those questions. A jury is not
>presented with the ashes and asked to decide if it was lightning or a
>campfire. They are presented with an accused person charged with the crime
>of arson. They then decide whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable
>doubt that the accused is the person who did it.
Exactly. They are *not* asked to meditate until some Truth materialises,
they are presented with arguments for and against and decide if the case
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
>> 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
>You are not authorized to run a red light. The ambulance doesn't have a
>blanket authority to run it either.
Where you live, perhaps.
>So the question is not about an
>ambulance or police car or fire truck.
Depends where you live.
>Not stopping for a red light is a
>strict liability offense.
In some but not all jurisdictions. This is like claiming that the
gravitational constant or the value of pi changes when you move across a
>Intent is not an issue. The question is if you
>run the light, and no officer sees you did you commit a crime(and don't
>twist this no lights siren or anything else), no court, no jury, no judge,
>just you and the light.
I'm not twisting it when I say that an emergency vehicle could and would
run that light (if safe) with no crime committed - because that's the
law of the land here. Perhaps where you live it's preferred to trap
emergency vehicles in traffic.
>I maintain you committed a crime.
Whereas here, no crime was committed.
>> 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.
>Actual that is not what happens. They consider whether the State proved
>beyond a reasonable doubt that you did what was alleged in the indictment.
>I have had more than one jury tell me after the trial, "your boy was guilty
>as sin and we all knew it, but the DA didn't prove it beyond a reasonable
Then the juries are doing their job properly (and the DA isn't).
>OJ was found guilty of murder in a CIVIL trial. The only difference between
>the two trials was the burden of proof.
Balance of probabilities vs. reasonable doubt. It's a big step.
Paul J. Adam
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of