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
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 22:44:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:44:06 EDT
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> 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
> :> law).
> :the problem is that the first does not exist.
> :There is no concept of "guilt" without the finding.
> For you.
> Frankly, this is a character problem on your part, I think.
personal abuse noted and ignored.
> :> 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.
then it shoudl be easy to cite a table written in stone, or on paper or even
elctoricnally that says that guilt exts outsideof the court room and the
legal sysem can "discover it" like an explorer discovering a new continent.
It doenst and they can't.
> :> 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?
you are "convicted" of a crime by a court
Date: 15th century
1 : the act or process of convicting of a crime especially in a court of law
2 a : the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission
of a truth
b : the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth
3 a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced
Convictions deal with beliefs. a conviction is a statemetn of belief, not
fact. in a court of alw it means the court is convinced of the guilt. but
it is stall a statement of belief. Inherant in state statement is the
stateemtn that a crime was committed. there is no other way in our system to
decalre that a crime was committed.
I fully accept that anyone int he world amy "bleive" anything they wish, but
belief does not make it so
> 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.
you logic is false. you are begging the quesion by starting by assuming the
answer that you msut demonstrate, ie. that a crime has occurred. events have
occurred. we simply do not knwo if a crime has occurred.
ill use an analogy. when is a work of art "finished" It is finished when
the artist declares it is finished. If the artist dies begfore making the
declaration. we have no idea if it was finished. crimes are the same kind
of declaration. its not very complicated.
> 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.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of