|
Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law.
I say ... obviously... yes. Of course one can break the law and not be
caught. It is a no brainer. You can be guilty but not *found* guilty.
A certain Usenet troll likes to disagree:
http://smallurl.com/?i=17123
Just wondering what others thought - though be aware that this post is cross
posted to the troll's "home" news group.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
In article <BD497D46.5D351%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law.
I say ... obviously... yes. Of course one can break the law and not be
caught. It is a no brainer. You can be guilty but not *found* guilty.
A certain Usenet troll likes to disagree:
http://smallurl.com/?i=17123
Just wondering what others thought - though be aware that this post is cross
posted to the troll's "home" news group.
Di you think there aren't lawyers that are unaware of what I'm talking
about? There shouldn't be... but people are people, Snit. If you find a
lawyer that agrees with your absolute statement that said:
"one can be guilty of breaking a law but not be *found* guilty in a
court of law"
.... I'd suggest you not hire him/her.
And let's have these lawyers see the real truth, shall we? You made this
statement with NO regard for any of the contexts you -subsequently-
brought up for which the word guilty can be used in (you missed Jewish
Mother guilt BTW). By doing this, you leave the reader to assume the one
context that is obviously implied, a legal context. In THIS context, you
cannot be "guilty of breaking the law" until certain things happen, even
if you committed the crime and EVERYONE knows you did it, including
yourself. Additionally, your statement was an absolute. It doesn't work
as an absolute in ALL possible contexts. There are definitions for the
word guilt that include punishment, Snit. Doesn't that turn the bulb on
for you? I showed you the origin of the word for a purpose, you ignored
it, told me it wasn't relevant in a discussion like this. You're wrong
about that... as wrong as you are about mixing contexts.
From Sherlock:
1. The criminality and consequent exposure to punishment resulting from
willful disobedience of law, or from morally wrong action;
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:56:14 GMT, Steve Carroll
<fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
in a word yes one who is guilty can be found not guilty. your question
was to broad to be anything but yes. a cop could have messed up on the
arrest and that could set the guy free. stuff like that or the
evidence might be lacking.
|
| |
| |
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0E0FC3.06563619082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 5:56 AM:
In article <BD497D46.5D351%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Di you think there aren't lawyers that are unaware of what I'm talking
about? There shouldn't be... but people are people, Snit. If you find a
lawyer that agrees with your absolute statement that said:
"one can be guilty of breaking a law but not be *found* guilty in a
court of law"
... I'd suggest you not hire him/her.
And let's have these lawyers see the real truth, shall we? You made this
statement with NO regard for any of the contexts you -subsequently-
brought up for which the word guilty can be used in (you missed Jewish
Mother guilt BTW). By doing this, you leave the reader to assume the one
context that is obviously implied, a legal context. In THIS context, you
cannot be "guilty of breaking the law" until certain things happen, even
if you committed the crime and EVERYONE knows you did it, including
yourself. Additionally, your statement was an absolute. It doesn't work
as an absolute in ALL possible contexts. There are definitions for the
word guilt that include punishment, Snit. Doesn't that turn the bulb on
for you? I showed you the origin of the word for a purpose, you ignored
it, told me it wasn't relevant in a discussion like this. You're wrong
about that... as wrong as you are about mixing contexts.
From Sherlock:
1. The criminality and consequent exposure to punishment resulting from
willful disobedience of law, or from morally wrong action;
Keep in mind the original context.
I commented that someone was guilty of breaking the law, though I argued the
chances of them being charged, no less convicted, was almost nil.
You went off on a side issue that implies I was arguing this person had
already been found guilty.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
"-=+ ArcaMan +=-" <why> wrote in k4c9i0dvrnj2ehdktt4oc4ko5h72fkdh07@4ax.com
on 8/19/04 6:55 AM:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:56:14 GMT, Steve Carroll
<fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
in a word yes one who is guilty can be found not guilty. your question
was to broad to be anything but yes. a cop could have messed up on the
arrest and that could set the guy free. stuff like that or the
evidence might be lacking.
Of course.
Innocent people are sometimes found guilty.
Guilty people are sometimes never even charged with a crime.
The legal system is not perfect.
Then again, even for guilty people who are eventually *found* guilty, they
can honestly plead "guilty" before the verdict of "guilt" has been reached.
Being found guilty does not make one guilty... committing the act does. The
legal system has no way of determining guilt 100%.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law?
I say ... obviously... yes. Of course one can break the law and not be
caught. It is a no brainer. You can be guilty but not *found* guilty.
If a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, can a rose also be
a turnip? Can one compete effectively with DeBeers by characterizing
a grain of sand a diamond?
The only no brainer element of the posting above is that apparently
neither the poster nor his interlocutors seem ware that it is just a
trivial dispute about an arbitrary definition thinly disguised as if a
meaningful question.
Clearly, one can be guilty if one feels guilty even if one has not
done anything, one can be guilty of having done some act which might
be criminally prosecutable if discovered and if prosecuted but without
being prosecuted criminally because of that act, and yet one might not
be guilty of a crime unless one is *found* guilty if one defines being
guilty of a crime only as what will have occurred if one has been
prosecuted by and convicted and sentenced and thus *found* guilty of
the crime.
bill. the often yellowish bonelike structure near a bird's mouth? the
first name of the male lead in the film, Scrooge? the document I
received in the mail today demanding payment of a sum of money? the
currency I tender in response to that demand? the list of cast members
in the psychodrama, Sophomorically Trivial Arguments About
Definitions? ... discuss - or, better, argue (endlessly?) among
yourselves .....
|
| |
| |
"roget@webster.dct" <roget@webster.dct> wrote in
4124bee3.60327347@news.east.earthlink.net on 8/19/04 7:54 AM:
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
If a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, can a rose also be
a turnip? Can one compete effectively with DeBeers by characterizing
a grain of sand a diamond?
The only no brainer element of the posting above is that apparently
neither the poster nor his interlocutors seem ware that it is just a
trivial dispute about an arbitrary definition thinly disguised as if a
meaningful question.
Exactly: the question came from a comment I made long ago about Bush being
guilty of committing a crime. Steve Carroll disagreed, but barely even
talked about the actual evidence I looked at, he merely started playing a
silly semantic game. It has never been in question the meaning or context
of my statement: I have never suggested Bush has been or even will be
*found* guilty. I have even stated why I believe he will never even be
charged.
All of this is a silly semantic game from Steve. What makes it even more
funny is he played a completely different game in relation to Clinton's
guilt about committing perjury. He stated such things as:
I didn't declare anything, I had no need to because the guilty man
declared himself guilty. How many times do you think you'll need to read
this before it actually sinks in?
And
Clinton was not convicted,(that we know of) despite the fact that
everyone knows he was guilty of lying under oath
And
When someone ADMITS they are guilty of something that generally
means they are guilty
And, in case Steve decides to claim the context was not legal, he even
stated this:
he admitted he was guilty... and that's BETTER than a courtroom
verdict because, unless you can provide a specific, extenuating
circumstance for doing so, it essentially removes all doubt.
Steve likes to run back to the concept of "context" as though *I* was the
one to get confused over it. His "context" completely changes when he talks
about Bush vs. talking about Clinton.
In other words, he is simply trolling and lying. I am just having some fun
at his expense over it. :)
Clearly, one can be guilty if one feels guilty even if one has not
done anything, one can be guilty of having done some act which might
be criminally prosecutable if discovered and if prosecuted but without
being prosecuted criminally because of that act, and yet one might not
be guilty of a crime unless one is *found* guilty if one defines being
guilty of a crime only as what will have occurred if one has been
prosecuted by and convicted and sentenced and thus *found* guilty of
the crime.
bill. the often yellowish bonelike structure near a bird's mouth? the
first name of the male lead in the film, Scrooge? the document I
received in the mail today demanding payment of a sum of money? the
currency I tender in response to that demand? the list of cast members
in the psychodrama, Sophomorically Trivial Arguments About
Definitions? ... discuss - or, better, argue (endlessly?) among
yourselves .....
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
In article <BD4A105D.5D7D6%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"roget@webster.dct" <roget@webster.dct> wrote in
4124bee3.60327347@news.east.earthlink.net on 8/19/04 7:54 AM:
Exactly: the question came from a comment I made long ago about Bush being
guilty of committing a crime.
Blah... blah... blah... you're killing me:) The question is YOUR
question and you are agreeing that is has no meaning? Ask him WHY it's a
meaningless question, Snit. No, I won't force you to remember that I
(and several others) told you the exact same thing:) Then ask him what
the legal definition of the word "guilty" is (so we can leave
arbitrary-ville)... and why no one should believe that definition when
talking guilt in a legal context.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
|
| |
| |
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-57F26F.10315919082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 9:31 AM:
In article <BD4A105D.5D7D6%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Blah... blah... blah... you're killing me:) The question is YOUR
question and you are agreeing that is has no meaning?
I am asking about your silly semantic games - just one more thing you
missed.
Ask him WHY it's a meaningless question, Snit. No, I won't force you to
remember that I (and several others) told you the exact same thing:) Then ask
him what the legal definition of the word "guilty" is (so we can leave
arbitrary-ville)... and why no one should believe that definition when talking
guilt in a legal context.
The legal system attempts to determine guilt. It does not do so perfectly,
and it certainly does not *create* guilt as you claim.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
In article <BD497D46.5D351%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law.
I say ... obviously... yes. Of course one can break the law and not be
caught. It is a no brainer. You can be guilty but not *found* guilty.
A certain Usenet troll likes to disagree:
http://smallurl.com/?i=17123
Just wondering what others thought - though be aware that this post is cross
posted to the troll's "home" news group.
Yes.
Consider a law that the jury finds is unfair and decides to nullify. It
could find the defendant guilty of the law, but then decide that the law
is unfair and needs to be overturned. So then they'd reverse their
finding of guilt.
Then of course there are other examples of laws that are overturned on
appeal to higher courts. For instance, various intrusive laws about
sexual behavior between consenting adults have been overturned. Someone
was guilty of breaking one of those laws but in the end was found not
guilty.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Otto: "Haha! Apes do not read philosophy!"
Wanda: "Yes, they do. They just don't understand it."
|
| |
| |
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
timberwoof-F0F955.20180119082004@typhoon.sonic.net on 8/19/04 8:18 PM:
In article <BD497D46.5D351%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Yes.
Consider a law that the jury finds is unfair and decides to nullify. It
could find the defendant guilty of the law, but then decide that the law
is unfair and needs to be overturned. So then they'd reverse their
finding of guilt.
So the person is guilty of breaking a law that has been nullified... in
affect also nullifying his "guilt". The person is still *responsible* for
his act, but, at least in a legal sense, has done nothing to be guilty for.
Then of course there are other examples of laws that are overturned on
appeal to higher courts. For instance, various intrusive laws about
sexual behavior between consenting adults have been overturned. Someone
was guilty of breaking one of those laws but in the end was found not
guilty.
Yup... people can be guilty of breaking a law but found not guilty.
No doubt in my book.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
In article <BD4AC800.5D964%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
timberwoof-F0F955.20180119082004@typhoon.sonic.net on 8/19/04 8:18 PM:
So the person is guilty of breaking a law that has been nullified... in
affect also nullifying his "guilt". The person is still *responsible* for
his act, but, at least in a legal sense, has done nothing to be guilty for.
Yup... people can be guilty of breaking a law but found not guilty.
No doubt in my book.
Gee... I wonder which book I should trust? Yours... or Black's Law?
Or how about the scant, incomplete definition that YOU provided for the
word guilty in a legal context?
LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
proceeding; adjudication
Is this one no good now?
"Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law."
Yes, but not in all contexts and answering it STILL won't change
anything wrt Bush's guilt that you claim for him. What? Did you forget
the fact that your statement/question has a lineage that can be traced
back to Bush and your insistence that he is already guilty of breaking
the law? No, you remembered... but it wouldn't have looked too good to
have written to a group of lawyers:
Is Bush guilt of breaking the law even though he has not been found
guilty in a court of law?
LOL! Refresh my memory here, Snit. Did you not drag this into legal
forums for a reason? Hmmm, the reason MUST be to avoid looking at legal
definitions for the word guilty. Certainly we wouldn't resort to looking
at those when we are talking about the word guilty in a legal forum...
just ask the first 'lawyer' or two you come across:)
You're right... we have no need for trial by jury any longer...
especially with citizens like you around.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
|
| |
| |
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-224B6E.11495220082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/20/04 10:49 AM:
In article <BD4AC800.5D964%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
Gee... I wonder which book I should trust? Yours... or Black's Law?
Or how about the scant, incomplete definition that YOU provided for the
word guilty in a legal context?
LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
proceeding; adjudication
Is this one no good now?
"Can one be guilty of breaking the law but not found guilty in a court of
law."
Yes, but not in all contexts and answering it STILL won't change
anything wrt Bush's guilt that you claim for him. What? Did you forget
the fact that your statement/question has a lineage that can be traced
back to Bush and your insistence that he is already guilty of breaking
the law? No, you remembered... but it wouldn't have looked too good to
have written to a group of lawyers:
Is Bush guilt of breaking the law even though he has not been found
guilty in a court of law?
LOL! Refresh my memory here, Snit. Did you not drag this into legal
forums for a reason? Hmmm, the reason MUST be to avoid looking at legal
definitions for the word guilty. Certainly we wouldn't resort to looking
at those when we are talking about the word guilty in a legal forum...
just ask the first 'lawyer' or two you come across:)
You're right... we have no need for trial by jury any longer...
especially with citizens like you around.
I skimmed this. Did you add anything to your semantic games and lies? If
so, please point it out.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:59 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-224B6E.11495220082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/20/04 10:49 AM:
I skimmed this. Did you add anything to your semantic games and lies? If
so, please point it out.
could you keep in in 1 group instead of crossposting it. we dont care
about your little wars.
|
| |
| |
"-=+ArcaMan+=-" <why> wrote in l3adi016n0se52j3tegelsb39ab0ohb2m1@4ax.com on
8/20/04 6:43 PM:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:59 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
wrote:
could you keep in in 1 group instead of crossposting it. we dont care
about your little wars.
My fault: I am the one guilty of cross posting.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
|
| |
| |
|
