Linux What's that My own survey. 3145

He's not arguing against it... he's making an point based on YOUR implication.

Yes, it explains the blatantly obvious well enough for those that might need it, though, anyone that can read and comprehend it undoubtedly already knows all this. Read her "earlier column" in this link (I cite one pertinent paragraph below). In it, she points out how you are free to "presume" guilt. One caveat she doesn't address... in a society like ours, where media and internet speed communications, there is an inherent danger to the jury selection process in presuming to the point of public declaration (like what you have done). Of course, a person like you, removing yourself from the jury pool in a legal case against a defendant is most butturedly a good thing in protecting one's "fundamental freedom from physical confinement".

How many people *don't* know that a person CAN have committed a crime despite not having undergone the trial process? You are now stuffing this argument into Larry Qualig's keyboard... an argument he did not make. I have never seen anyone make this argument. I have seen you yank stuff out of context like you did here to pretend that people have made it... but I've never seen anyone "actually" make it.

I never met anyone who met anyone that "actually" held this belief.

Yes, we can think whatever we wish... even a juror can think that way... but if they wish to remain on the jury they'd better keep such thoughts to themselves. Real enlightening information here, Snit... a U.S. law professor reminds everyone that a person can have committed a crime prior to a jury's conclusion and that the general populace is free to

I would add that it *should* apply to anyone wanting to be fair. As can be evidenced by the many discussions you have had on this subject, people are generally seen to be applying the presumption of innocence outside of a courtroom... and thankfully so. Just as people are, as the author here notes, "free, both factually and legally, to think whatever we wish about the guilt or innocence of a defendant", we are equally free to apply the courtroom requirement of a presumption of innocence to our thought process.

Also from this "earlier column":

"You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent."

She used the right words in the wrong order. Even so, For the purposes of THIS discussion, this should read:

You can PRESUME a person is guilty as charged but realize that you're doing so subject to the limitation of evidence you know about at the time you are making the PRESUMPTION.

Of course not... but a legal verdict of guilt CAN make you 'legally guilty' even if you have committed no crime. In this same respect, some people that have committed crimes are not 'legally guilty' of those crimes because they either haven't been charged or the jury handed down a verdict of 'not guilty'. As I tried over and over to educate you on, it's all a question of context. In this legal context, 'guilt' essentially means 'responsible for'. See your obvious problem YET? You're clearly taking about *moral guilt* and your *opinions* or *presumptions* regarding Bush and the breaking of a law. When the breaking of a law is the question of the alleged guilt action, only the system which created the law that is alleged to be broken can decide if the allegation has merit. Anything else is just meaningless armchair quarterbacking... to put it in perspective, your *presumption* over Bush's guilt carries as much weight as you attempting to send in the next play to Ben Roethlisberger. That you admitted your evidence didn't prove a single thing might give you a better shot with Ben...

Where did he say he 'felt' one way or another? Hint: He didn't... he merely pointed out something obvious.

Simple, by not being truthful with the admission or plea. A plea doesn't make a person "actually guilty" if he hasn't committed a crime. The context you are discussing HERE is one where guilt is ALWAYS arrived at via a "finding"... even if a plea of guilty is entered a judge must still 'find' for the plea, whether or not it's a false plea. He must determine if you're sane, if you have an ulterior motive or if you're being coerced... whatever. He also needs to make sure you realize the implications involved. Guilt, in THIS context is ALWAYS arrived at via a "finding". That was Larry's point here... the point you missed while busy attributing to him an argument he never made.

"Actually, you make no sense. In any event, ever heard of plea bargaining, Snit?

You're *truly* an idiot. Larry Qualig is drawing a distinction between contexts for you and, here you are, carelessly sloshing back and forth between them like you've done for over two years.

An argument for which you wrote this regarding your evidence:

"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense, proof."

Here we see you flatly admitting that, "technically, in a logical sense", you don't have one "true" thing from which "something else necessarily follows from it", yet, you claim your evidence (which you ADMITS offers ZERO proof) "strongly supports" your "conclusion"!

And now, regarding your "conclusion", you are arguing that it is NOT a "finding" on your part... that Bush is "actually guilty" and you conducted no form of a "finding" to reach your "conclusion". I even pointed you to a dictionary link where the thesaurus shows the word "conclusion" is synonymous with the word "finding". You're obviously mentally disturbed.

-- "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls like myself" - Snit