Re: [wc] Re: am I crazy to go to London in October?

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:43:47 -0700

Okay, there's clearly a language gap going on.  You are using words that I take to mean one thing and using them with a definition I don't wholly accept.

e.g. Guilt:  the concept of guilt is not the same as sin or accountability.  It is closely linked with the law of a state and customs of a people.  There must be a crime to have guilt.  You cannot know another person's guilt of a crime without evidence.  Of which you only have the word of govenrment officials. (BTW, it's NOT cool that the jury thought Scott Peterson was guilty beforehand.  It severely compromises his right to a fair trial.  His motion to be moved to another locality was rejected because it was not believed that he could receive a fair trial anywhere in the state of California.)

know, believe, think and feel - you used them all interchangably in your second to last response.  You are welcome to believe, think or feel all you want that the people arrested in connection to this plot are guilty.  You are welcome to an opinion.  But you don't know.  You can't know.

I wish to say that I have no reason to doubt that there was a plot, and that the various governments had good reason to suspect the people arrested.  But as human beings tried under British or international law, they are entitled to a fair trial.  And a fair trial depends upon the presumption of innocence until the state has proven guilt.

Do I think you're being unreasonable?  Yes, in the sense that I don't see a lot of logic in your responses.  I think you want your feelings to be validated by the group, and some of us responded to your statements at face value and engaged you in a discussion when that's not really what you wanted.  As for the validation, my earlier response about gratitude and celebration pretty much is the antithesis of what you feel.  So I cannot offer it.  However, I'm certain there are other people on the group who do feel the same way as you do.

On 8/13/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Is the consensus truly that I'm being unreasonable to think that these
people are guilty of planning a plot to blow up 10 planes over the
Atlantic? If you really think I'm being unreasonable to think this, I
will take that under advisement.



--- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Let me try this again. I thought Scott Petersen was guilty in
> advance. So did they jury, so that's cool. But I would have thought
> he was guilty even if the jury didn't. I though OJ was guilty. The
> jury didn't. I still think he's guilty. I think these people were
> planning to explode 10 airplanes over the Atlantic. There hasn't been
> a trial. I still think they're guilty. Who specifically? The
> majority of the people who were arrested, plus a few others. I can
> come to the conclusion that someone is guilty without a trial, or even
> if the trial says otherwise. It won't necessarily change how I feel.
> I mean it might, but it won't automatically. People often know who
> murdered people, even if the police don't have enough evidence to
> bring someone to trial. They know who is guilty, even if there is no
> trial. I truly believe that just because you may not have enough
> evidence to bring someone to trial or win or whatever doesn't mean you
> don't think they did it. I was pretty sure the DC snipers did it,
> even before they went to trial. I'm sure I'm not alone. And I don't
> think it is a bad thing, necessarily. It's not illegal to have an
> opinion. I don't think it is necessary to jump down my throat just
> because I think these guys were planning to blow up 10 planes over the
> Atlantic, even though they haven't had a trial yet. No it hasn't been
> proven, but I think they did it anyway. So did the government of both
> the US and the UK, obviously, along with Pakistan and a few other
> countries. We'll see how this plays out, but I haven't read anything
> to make me believe otherwise yet. Sure if I had been on the OJ trial
> I would have been more than happy to tell them in advance that I think
> he did it. I would have been kicked off the jury. Oh well. Boy
> getting out of jury duty is easier than I thought, I don't even have
> to lie! If I don't know whether the person did it or not I wouldn't
> say they did just to get out of jury duty, but if I have already
> formed an opinion you bet I would say so. Sometimes whether a person
> did it or not isn't the issue, but whether it was intentional or if
> they were aware of what they were doing or whatever. Like Andrea
> Yates. So that's a different story.
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Daria Akers"
> <daria.akers@> wrote:
> >
> > "If someone watches someone else murder a third person, and says
> > that's who did it, I'm pretty sure they're guilty, regardless of what
> > the trial says"
> > Are you kidding? 3 people are in a room. 1 died. Person A says
> Person B did
> > it and you believe them. What if Person B says Person A did it at
> the same
> > time. Or you didn't mean that?
> >
> > All I have to say is:
> > 1) I find it hard to believe I'm alone in this.- I unfortunately
> agree with
> > you. I believe a lot of people rush to judgement before all the
> facts are
> > know.
> > 2) I hope that if you truly have these feeling and you are ever
> called for
> > jury duty that you would be open and honest about them.
> >
> > I also think that nothing we say to you about this will change your
> mind....
> > But I believe that every day there are people incorrectly jailed
because
> > they are railroaded by prosecutors and the police. Don't believe it?
> Check
> > out http://www.innocenceproject.org/
> >
> > Daria
> >
> >
> > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK do you believe someone or multiple people are guilty of this
> plot?
> > > I do, and I want them to rot in hell. You want them to rot in jail.
> > > I think jail often doesn't do the trick, especially for something
> > > like this. I never said they don't need a trial. I just meant I
don't
> > > need a trial for me to believe that they're guilty. I believe OJ was
> > > guilty. The trial didn't prove he was guilty, but I still believe he
> > > was guilty. If Scott Petersen had been found not guilty I would have
> > > still believed he was guilty. I find it hard to believe I'm alone in
> > > this. If someone watches someone else murder a third person, and
says
> > > that's who did it, I'm pretty sure they're guilty, regardless of
what
> > > the trial says. So I rush to judgment. What I think doesn't really
> > > matter in the long run. I can think these people are guilty as hell.
> > > What the trial says won't change my opinion. If there isn't enough
> > > evidence to convict someone that doesn't necessarily change the fact
> > > that I think they're guilty.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
[email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Hannah Robinson"
> > >
> > > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The operative word in your quote is 'prove'. The only way to
'prove'
> > > > someone's guilt is in court. Using evidence. A confession cannot
> > > be the
> > > > whole sum of evidence. An investigation must still be done to
> > > correlate the
> > > > information, because sometimes people make false confessions
or lie
> > > about
> > > > pertinent facts in their confessions. And sometimes the police
beat
> > > people
> > > > into false confessions.
> > > >
> > > > A trial is not needed to determine punishment. A trial is to
> > > determine the
> > > > guilt or innocence of the person charged with a specific
crime. The
> > > > determination of punishment is the sentencing, which happens
after a
> > > person
> > > > is convicted of the crime with which s/he has been charged.
> > > >
> > > > You have an awful lot of faith in the state. But if the state
is not
> > > > obligated to prove it's case before an impartial judge and
jury, the
> > > > potential for abuse already inherent in the system becomes a solid
> > > reality.
> > > > We have to have the balance of the trial process and the
protections
> > > of a
> > > > defense. It is vital for a stable democratic society to have
> > > protections
> > > > for its citizens against the predations of its government. THAT is
> > > why we
> > > > have the rule of law.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I said, " I'm getting the impression that they have good
reason to
> > > > >
> > > > > believe the majority of them are guilty. Sorry, I'm
convinced. You
> > > > > don't need a trial to prove someone is guilty." You said you are
> > > > > using guilt and evidence interchangeably. So guilt can be
> determined
> > > > > prior to the trial? I agree a trial is needed to determine
> > > > > punishment, but sometimes it isn't needed to determine guilt.
> How can
> > > > > there be instances of overwhelming guilt without a trial? I
still
> > > > > think people can be determined to be guilty without a trial.
> > > > > Determining punishment maybe not, but determining guilt yes.
> Hmm, I
> > > > > wonder if OJ would have had a trial to determine guilt if he
> had said
> > > > > yes I killed my ex-wife and Ron Goldman that night.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > [email protected]
> <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > "Hannah Robinson"
> > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I meant guilt and evidence interchangably. You still have to
> have a
> > > > > trial.
> > > > > > As for the terrorists rotting in hell? I'll take rotting in a
> > > maximum
> > > > > > security prison for the rest of their natural lives - provided
> > > they are
> > > > > > convicted in as fair a trial as is possible under the
> circumstances.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I started writing this before, but I couldn't quite
> say it the
> > > > > way I
> > > > > > wanted. I am not angry that a plot was thwarted. I am
incredibly
> > > happy
> > > > > > that a plot was thwarted, particularly as it was due primarily
> > > to legal
> > > > > > surveillance and communication across several countries.
> Good solid
> > > > > police
> > > > > > work and international cooperation meant that hundreds of
people
> > > > > kept their
> > > > > > lives. So nobody died, and it turns out we now have proof that
> > > we don't
> > > > > > need to sacrifice personal liberty and the rule of law to be
> safe.
> > > > > These
> > > > > > are things to celebrate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I went and saw "Little Miss Sunshine." Effing hilarious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > did you mean overwhelming guilt, or overwhelming evidence? I
> > > think I
> > > > > > > may have worded my original statement incorrectly. Not
"those
> > > people
> > > > > > > they arrested" but "the people who did it." It's
possible they
> > > > > > > arrested innocent people, and even more likely that not
> everyone
> > > > > > > involved was arrested, but I have no doubt there was a plot,
> > > and the
> > > > > > > people who were planning it should rot in hell, whether
> they are
> > > > > > > convicted or not. Is that better?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > >
> [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > "Hannah Robinson"
> > > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sigh. I'm going to bullet-point this one:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) No one's arguing that these people were arrested
without
> > > cause.
> > > > > > > We're
> > > > > > > > taking exception with your implied belief that a trial is
> > > > > unnecessary in
> > > > > > > > instances of overwhelming guilt. The rule of law
> dictates that a
> > > > > person
> > > > > > > > suspected of a crime be charged under the stated laws
of the
> > > land
> > > > > > > and that
> > > > > > > > the state must marshall evidence to prove beyond a
> > > reasonable doubt
> > > > > > > that the
> > > > > > > > person under trial has in fact committed those crimes and
> > > should be
> > > > > > > punished
> > > > > > > > for them. The burden of proof is on the state, not on the
> > > > > > > defendant. And
> > > > > > > > it's certainly not in the court of public opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Claiming responsibility (i.e confessing) is not
proof in
> > > and of
> > > > > > > itself
> > > > > > > > that the group was behind it. There are many reasons
why an
> > > > > > > organization
> > > > > > > > might claim false credit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) A criminal trial should follow the dictates I set out
> > > earlier.
> > > > > > > The farce
> > > > > > > > that is Saddam's trial should not be held up as an
> example of a
> > > > > working
> > > > > > > > system of justice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) In the article cited, the writer does not use the word
> > > > > 'allegedly'
> > > > > > > > because the word 'suspect' is used appropriately to
> describe the
> > > > > > > individuals
> > > > > > > > arrested and accused of the crime.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand that you're upset, but you're also wrong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK, am I the only one who is pretty sure that at least
> some of
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > people did something wrong? This is pretty extreme
action
> > > if they
> > > > > > > > > didn't. Tough call, I know, but if they had blown
> themselves
> > > > > up they
> > > > > > > > > would have been pretty guilty and there still wouldn't
> > > have been a
> > > > > > > > > trial. I read some group claimed responsibility. If a
> > > group takes
> > > > > > > > > responsibility for something, they are pretty much
> admitting
> > > > > they did
> > > > > > > > > it without a trial. Sometimes a trial is just to
determine
> > > > > > > > > punishment, not prove guilt. Did Saddam Hussein go to
> trial to
> > > > > > > > > determine if he was guilty or not?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053_pf.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I noticed an unusual absence of the word "allegedly"
> in this
> > > > > article,
> > > > > > > > > usually used when reporters don't want to be accused
> of making
> > > > > false
> > > > > > > > > accusations. They seem pretty sure that these people
were
> > > planning
> > > > > > > > > something big. If you really think I'm jumping to
> > > conclusions, I'm
> > > > > > > > > willing to entertain that possibility.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > >
> > > [email protected]
> <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Hannah Robinson"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's kind of the whole point of a trial, Ellen.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 8/11/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting the impression that they have good
> reason to
> > > > > > > believe the
> > > > > > > > > > > majority of them are guilty. Sorry, I'm
convinced. You
> > > don't
> > > > > > > need a
> > > > > > > > > > > trial to prove someone is guilty.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > > "denisesudell"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <dsudell7781@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Those people they arrested should rot in hell.
> . . .
> > > > > Yes it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible they arrested some people that were
> innocent,
> > > > > but I am
> > > > > > > > > > > > certain they aren't all innocent. . . . This is
> sick and
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > deserve whatever is coming to them."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Boy, if I ever get arrested and charged with a
> crime, I
> > > > > hope you
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > serve on the jury.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>


__._,_.___

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to