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
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 20:57:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 13:57:15 PDT
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
:the problem is that the first does not exist.
:Ther eis no concept of guilt withotu the finding.
Frankly, this is a character problem on your part, I think.
:> 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.
:> 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?
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.
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.
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden