| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonez©" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 09:23:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
wordsmith@rocketmail.com wrote:
But is it *totally* subjective? Is there no objective component
to it at all? Sorry if these questions are elementary. You're
getting me to think about it, though, and that's important.
Well, to borrow a phrase from The Beaver, perhaps the US Legal
System has an "imaginary" component of Objectivity in the
Jury conviction standard.
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 13 and 17-20 (Approving
a charge that conveyed the concept that "absolute certainty is
unattainable in matters relating to human affairs" when the charge
said "'everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral
evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt'" ; and
approving that portion of the charge that stated that "a reasonable
doubt is not a mere possible doubt.")
This ain't Nebraska anymore Beav ...
And you failed to address California addendum to the standard "... to a moral
certainty"
Care to tell us how that differs from mere "reasonable doubt", and to whose
"morals" they are referring, and just how damn "certain" one must be ...?
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry's Imbecility Knows no Bounds -- The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 04:32:53 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <vrd%e.34$Q45.1823@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Solar wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is
my least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And
landed in a puddle." Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons.
They sound ridiculous."
They can sound any way the listner interprets them. They can
be ridiculous in the teacher's opinion.
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them!
No, the teacher doesn't have to believe them, moron.
They're reasons! Therefore,
they must be REASONABLE!""
His explanation was reasonABLE. Why are you so
pig ignorant that you don't comprehend basic English
grammar, eh Larry? How could you be that stupid?
If you think I am the stupid one, let's take a poll.
Who here thinks that when a teacher asks a child where his missing
homework is, the response "The dog ate it, then it blew away into the
wind. And then it landed in a puddle." is a reasonable explanation
for the missing homework? Anyone? Bueller?
It would be exceptionally reasonable if it did indeed happen.
Just because it's a reason for the homework to not be there doesn't
mean it is reasonable.
Yes, it does, ipso facto, moron.
As stated before, REASONable does not always coincide
with "true, accurate, correct, etc", as you well know
when you make your pathetically false conclusions
for whatever dysfunctional mental reasons you harbor
in what you claim passes for your brain.
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
Is there really any possibility that this Larry imbecile actually
made it into law school with his profoundly dysfuctional
comprehension of basic English, much less graduated?
Graduated near the top of my class, with honors. I've been published,
too. :)
Sure Larry ... class of fools. And letters to the editor don't count as
being "published", you pig-ignorant imbecile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Hamman" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry's Imbecility Knows no Bounds -- The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
04 Oct 2005 12:00:03 AM |
|
|
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:lkY%e.81$0e3.4542@news.uswest.net...
Larry wrote:
In article <vrd%e.34$Q45.1823@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Solar wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is
my least favorite letter."
[...]
Is there really any possibility that this Larry imbecile actually
made it into law school with his profoundly dysfuctional
comprehension of basic English, much less graduated?
Graduated near the top of my class, with honors. I've been published,
too. :)
Sure Larry ... class of fools. And letters to the editor don't count as
being "published", you pig-ignorant imbecile.
OK...I want to preface this response by saying that I am not passing
judgement on Larry...I dont know him. I am, however, reponding to the
question of the possibility of an imbecile making it into law school. And
the answer to that question is YES. I am currently dealing with a judge,
several court appointed attorneys, and an assistant DA who seem unable or
unwilling to read....and basic English comprehension...forget it. It's too
much work for them (at least in the juvenile court here...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry's Imbecility Knows no Bounds -- The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 05:10:41 PM |
|
|
In article <lkY%e.81$0e3.4542@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <vrd%e.34$Q45.1823@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Solar wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is
my least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And
landed in a puddle." Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons.
They sound ridiculous."
They can sound any way the listner interprets them. They can
be ridiculous in the teacher's opinion.
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them!
No, the teacher doesn't have to believe them, moron.
They're reasons! Therefore,
they must be REASONABLE!""
His explanation was reasonABLE. Why are you so
pig ignorant that you don't comprehend basic English
grammar, eh Larry? How could you be that stupid?
If you think I am the stupid one, let's take a poll.
Who here thinks that when a teacher asks a child where his missing
homework is, the response "The dog ate it, then it blew away into the
wind. And then it landed in a puddle." is a reasonable explanation
for the missing homework? Anyone? Bueller?
It would be exceptionally reasonable if it did indeed happen.
The entire purpose of a trial is because we don't know - or can't agree
- on "what happened." The jury needs to decide if there is a reasonable
doubt as to what happened, not whether one of those doubts actually is
what occurred.
Just because it's a reason for the homework to not be there doesn't
mean it is reasonable.
Yes, it does, ipso facto, moron.
No, just because the excuse is labelled a "reason" does not make it
reasonable.
What if little Johnny said "a dinosaur ate my homework!" I don't think
anyone thinks that is a reasonable explanation for what happened.
By your definition, any possible alternative is in fact reasonable,
because the defense lawyer suggested it as a "reason." Its up to the
jury to decide if any reason - whether one offered by the defense or one
thought up on their own, passes the laugh-test.
As stated before, REASONable does not always coincide
with "true, accurate, correct, etc", as you well know
when you make your pathetically false conclusions
for whatever dysfunctional mental reasons you harbor
in what you claim passes for your brain.
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
Is there really any possibility that this Larry imbecile actually
made it into law school with his profoundly dysfuctional
comprehension of basic English, much less graduated?
Graduated near the top of my class, with honors. I've been published,
too. :)
Sure Larry ... class of fools. And letters to the editor don't count as
being "published", you pig-ignorant imbecile.
Good thing I had a long article published, and not a a letter to the
editor published, then!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Whoop! .. there it is!! -- The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:26:58 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <lU0%e.84$3X4.5926@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <7PI_e.58$Be5.1009@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on
Thursday, I would have a reason to think the players play
harder
on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence
with causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
Admit what?
That having a reason to doubt does not mean that there is
reasonable doubt.
Clearly is does, ipso facto.
If you claim otherwise, post a citation to law in opposition.
It's your claim. Post a citation to the law upholding your
definition.
ROTFLMAO !!!
You posted it for me, you stammering jackass:
Larry the imbecile wrote, and I quote:
For example, here is the pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt
in New York.
<begin quote>
"What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to tell you
how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of
guilty.
The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very
few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant
guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not
sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a
criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must
be beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt
of
the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature
and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary
doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of
this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence
that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
Proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly
convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt
of
the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's
identity
as the person who committed the crime.
<end quote>
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 01:10:45 AM |
|
|
Prof Jonez wrote
"It was REASONable for men to conclude, based on
the little evidence they had, that the Earth was Flat,
and/or that the Sun orbited around the Earth. They
did so, using REASON, for 1000s of years, Larry."
Ziiiiiiiiiiing !!!!!!!!
"Turns out they were dead WRONG, especially
in light of new discoveries and science, but at
the time and based solely on the evidence they
had available, it was REASONable to make such
an erroneous conclusion, now wasn't it Larry, o'
King of Erroneous Conclusions?"
Wellllllllllllllll.... y'know, "Glasskisser" *might* be a little less
cumbersome in conversation... <g>
-----------
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Officer" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 03:33:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:25:21 -0600, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, " \"-
Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
remember I am not a lawyer, but have served on a few juries.
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
you left out the words "based upon evidence and only evidence presented
inside the court." Those words are used in every jury case I have ever seen.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto
...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
People can have "reason to doubt", but that doubt can be deemed unreasonable
because it isn't based upon evidence presented before the court.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
Logically and Semantically impossible.
No it isn't.... doubt can be based not on evidence but pre-existing bias,
information heard outside of court, so called "gut instincts"... in a court
setting these should not be considered.
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very bad)
reason to doubt.
Yet, still REASONable to that person/Juror proclaiming it.
not it isn't reasonable... it has no basis in rational thinking. it is
called "bias".
But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Sure is does, just not to you.
Fortunately you, the infamous Seth Breidbart, don't get to
determine what is and isn't reasonable for other Jurors,
unless you're contemplating extending a mind-reading
variant of your censorious BI into Jury deliberation rooms
across the USA.
The BI is a metric... a measurement... at which point Spam becomes fair game
for cancellation by anyone.
--
Ak'toh'di
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 05:01:33 PM |
|
|
Bob Officer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:25:21 -0600, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, "
\"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
remember I am not a lawyer, but have served on a few juries.
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each
juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
you left out the words "based upon evidence and only evidence
presented inside the court." Those words are used in every jury case
I have ever seen.
So unless the Theory of Gravity and the linear irreversable theory of
Time is presented in court, the Jurors cannot base any conclusion they
make from commonly known universal realities?
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso
facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
People can have "reason to doubt", but that doubt can be deemed
unreasonable because it isn't based upon evidence presented before
the court.
No, you're wrong on both counts. If they have reason to doubt,
they have REASONable Doubt, ipso facto. Whether or not they
draw that doubt from anything inside or outside the courtroom
would only reflect on how well they followed the Court's instructions,
not the definition of Reasonable Doubt.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
Logically and Semantically impossible.
No it isn't.... doubt can be based not on evidence but pre-existing
bias, information heard outside of court, so called "gut
instincts"... in a court setting these should not be considered.
That don't change the fact that Jurors who have reason to doubt,
have, ipso facto, reasonable doubt. Are you claiming that
jurors cannot use their own personal human experiences
to judge the demeanor and/or veracity of a witness, absent
the lawyers introducing the entire body of human psychology
and sociology into evidence?
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very
bad) reason to doubt.
Yet, still REASONable to that person/Juror proclaiming it.
not it isn't reasonable...
Yes it is, by definition.
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
it has no basis in rational thinking. it is
called "bias".
Once again, "rational" and "reasonable" are not
exact synonyms. The Jurors are not charged with
finding guilt "beyond a RATIONAL doubt", now are they?
But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Sure is does, just not to you.
Fortunately you, the infamous Seth Breidbart, don't get to
determine what is and isn't reasonable for other Jurors,
unless you're contemplating extending a mind-reading
variant of your censorious BI into Jury deliberation rooms
across the USA.
The BI is a metric... a measurement... at which point Spam becomes
fair game for cancellation by anyone.
So Seth could created an algorithm to measure the "reasonableness"
of individual Jurors, then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 09:12:32 PM |
|
|
In article <bnE_e.1847$Dt.7645@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Bob Officer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:25:21 -0600, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, "
\"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
remember I am not a lawyer, but have served on a few juries.
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each
juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
you left out the words "based upon evidence and only evidence
presented inside the court." Those words are used in every jury case
I have ever seen.
So unless the Theory of Gravity and the linear irreversable theory of
Time is presented in court, the Jurors cannot base any conclusion they
make from commonly known universal realities?
They can use their common sense. But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute in the
case.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso
facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
People can have "reason to doubt", but that doubt can be deemed
unreasonable because it isn't based upon evidence presented before
the court.
No, you're wrong on both counts. If they have reason to doubt,
they have REASONable Doubt, ipso facto. Whether or not they
draw that doubt from anything inside or outside the courtroom
would only reflect on how well they followed the Court's instructions,
not the definition of Reasonable Doubt.
Only using YOUR definition of reasonable doubt. Every definition I've
ever heard a court use defines it as a doubt based on the evidence or
lack of evidence in the case. That's it.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 09:41:24 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <bnE_e.1847$Dt.7645@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Bob Officer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:25:21 -0600, in
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
remember I am not a lawyer, but have served on a few juries.
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each
juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
you left out the words "based upon evidence and only evidence
presented inside the court." Those words are used in every jury
case I have ever seen.
So unless the Theory of Gravity and the linear irreversable theory
of Time is presented in court, the Jurors cannot base any
conclusion they make from commonly known universal realities?
They can use their common sense.
So were you lying when you claimed they could ONLY use
exactly what was presented in evidence at court, and NOTHING more?
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute in
the case.
So someone with a Physics background cannot use his common sense
knowlege of physics in a case, say traffic accident, where
speed/acceleration/impact
vectors are in dispute, eh?
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have,
ipso facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
People can have "reason to doubt", but that doubt can be deemed
unreasonable because it isn't based upon evidence presented before
the court.
No, you're wrong on both counts. If they have reason to doubt,
they have REASONable Doubt, ipso facto. Whether or not they
draw that doubt from anything inside or outside the courtroom
would only reflect on how well they followed the Court's
instructions, not the definition of Reasonable Doubt.
Only using YOUR definition of reasonable doubt.
Well Larry, you claimed to have a different definition, an
objective "term of art", yet you can't seem to produce it when
challenged. So either put up or shut up, Larry.
Every definition I've
ever heard a court use defines it as a doubt based on the evidence or
lack of evidence in the case. That's it.
So can the Jurors use "common sense" as you claimed, or "common knowledge",
if same was not presented directly as evidence in the case or can't they, Larry?
Make up your festering mind.
You can't possibly be a licensed practicing member of the NY bar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 07:25:37 PM |
|
|
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
So were you lying when you claimed they could ONLY use
exactly what was presented in evidence at court, and NOTHING more?
I wasn't lying.
They can "use" their common sense to evaluate the "evidence." But their
"verdict" must be based on the "evidence" and nothing else.
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.* So is Jon
and everyone else. Don't get personal just because you think you're
right and every federal and state court in the country is wrong.
But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute in
the case.
So someone with a Physics background cannot use his common sense
knowlege of physics in a case, say traffic accident, where
speed/acceleration/impact
vectors are in dispute, eh?
Someone with a physics background doesn't have "common sense" about
physics. Nothing is "common" about it if its specialized knowledge.
But the physicist can't do his own experiments and tests in the jury
room. He has to decide what the experiments and tests introduced into
evidence prove.
Well Larry, you claimed to have a different definition, an
objective "term of art", yet you can't seem to produce it when
challenged. So either put up or shut up, Larry.
*I* don't have any definition. Courts do.
For example, here is the pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt in
New York.
<begin quote>
"What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to tell you how
convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of guilty.
The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very
few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant
guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not
sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a
criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must
be beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature
and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary
doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of
this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence
that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence. Proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly
convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of
the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity
as the person who committed the crime.
<end quote>
Every definition I've
ever heard a court use defines it as a doubt based on the evidence or
lack of evidence in the case. That's it.
So can the Jurors use "common sense" as you claimed, or "common knowledge",
if same was not presented directly as evidence in the case or can't they,
Larry?
Make up your festering mind.
There's nothing to make up. They can use their common sense to evaluate
the evidence, but the verdict must be based on the evidence.
You can't possibly be a licensed practicing member of the NY bar.
I am. You can't possibly be anything more than a troll who posts alot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable DoubtInquiry |
29 Sep 2005 07:40:46 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.*
That's okay, Lar-- Since you won't even 'fess up as to what your
last name is, despite compelling evidence as to what it is, it is no
wonder that Jonezy (or anyone else, for that matter) takes whatever you
say with a Lot-sized pillar of salt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 08:33:24 PM |
|
|
In article <433C8914.4080101@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.*
That's okay, Lar-- Since you won't even 'fess up as to what your
last name is, despite compelling evidence as to what it is, it is no
wonder that Jonezy (or anyone else, for that matter) takes whatever you
say with a Lot-sized pillar of salt.
I really don't care.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:04:59 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <433C8914.4080101@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.*
That's okay, Lar-- Since you won't even 'fess up as to what your
last name is, despite compelling evidence as to what it is, it is no
wonder that Jonezy (or anyone else, for that matter) takes whatever
you say with a Lot-sized pillar of salt.
I really don't care.
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Beaver" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 01:34:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:04:59 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <433C8914.4080101@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.*
That's okay, Lar-- Since you won't even 'fess up as to what your
last name is, despite compelling evidence as to what it is, it is no
wonder that Jonezy (or anyone else, for that matter) takes whatever
you say with a Lot-sized pillar of salt.
I really don't care.
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
A reasonable doubt is not required to acquit. Proof BEYOND a
reasonable doubt is required to convict. What's the difference? It's
a semantical battle over the excluded middle. Unless you are FIJA
member, we all seem to agree that conviction is proper, arguably even
a duty, if there is NO doubt of guilt. We agree that acquittal is
mandatory if there is an articulable reason, based on the evidence, or
lack of it, of the defendant's guilt. What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our side,"
the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not convinced of the
defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason why he is not
convinced. There are those who want to state the rule in such a
fashion as to be capable of interpretation by jurors - and the jury
pool at large -- that it is "unreasonable" for a juror not to know why
he is not convinced. But that's never been the law. It has been
repeatedly held that the defendant does not have to prove ANYTHING.
This prohibits any instruction which implies that the jury must
convict merely because the defendant hasn't "raised a reasonable
doubt" or hasn't provided an "innocent explanation" for the evidence.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 04:52:36 PM |
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:04:59 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <433C8914.4080101@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.*
That's okay, Lar-- Since you won't even 'fess up as to what
your last name is, despite compelling evidence as to what it
is, it is no wonder that Jonezy (or anyone else, for that
matter) takes whatever you say with a Lot-sized pillar of salt.
I really don't care.
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
A reasonable doubt is not required to acquit. Proof BEYOND a
reasonable doubt is required to convict. What's the difference?
A distinction without a difference perhaps?
It's
a semantical battle over the excluded middle. Unless you are FIJA
member, we all seem to agree that conviction is proper, arguably even
a duty, if there is NO doubt of guilt.
Unless one is a moralist like those that acquitted William Penn
or John Peter Zenger during their trials for seditious libel
against the Crown, or those pesky moralist jurors who acquitted
100s of those members of the Underground Railroad who helped
them enslaved ***** escape thier white masters.
We agree that acquittal is
mandatory if there is an articulable reason, based on the evidence, or
lack of it, of the defendant's guilt.
Yep.
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our side,"
the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not convinced of the
defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason why he is not
convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
There are those who want to state the rule in such a
fashion as to be capable of interpretation by jurors - and the jury
pool at large -- that it is "unreasonable" for a juror not to know why
he is not convinced.
A triple negative ...?
No one has ever made the claim you state, Beav, and that isn't
the topic under discussion.
But that's never been the law.
Agreed. Nor should it be, but alas, you digress ...
It has been
repeatedly held that the defendant does not have to prove ANYTHING.
Correct.
This prohibits any instruction which implies that the jury must
convict merely because the defendant hasn't "raised a reasonable
doubt" or hasn't provided an "innocent explanation" for the evidence.
Exactly.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 05:14:44 PM |
|
|
In article <QCY%e.86$0e3.4874@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
We agree that acquittal is
mandatory if there is an articulable reason, based on the evidence, or
lack of it, of the defendant's guilt.
Yep.
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our side,"
the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not convinced of the
defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason why he is not
convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
What if the juror says "there's a nagging voice in the back of my head
that says maybe the witness wasn't completely honest. I can't put a
finger on it, and I don't know why, but I'm not 100% convinced it
happened."
There is no articulable reason here, but the verdict should still be an
acquittal.
There are those who want to state the rule in such a
fashion as to be capable of interpretation by jurors - and the jury
pool at large -- that it is "unreasonable" for a juror not to know why
he is not convinced.
A triple negative ...?
No one has ever made the claim you state, Beav, and that isn't
the topic under discussion.
But that's never been the law.
Agreed. Nor should it be, but alas, you digress ...
It has been
repeatedly held that the defendant does not have to prove ANYTHING.
Correct.
This prohibits any instruction which implies that the jury must
convict merely because the defendant hasn't "raised a reasonable
doubt" or hasn't provided an "innocent explanation" for the evidence.
Exactly.
Which also means you can't require jurors to have a reason, express a
reason, or articulate a reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 07:08:55 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <QCY%e.86$0e3.4874@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
We agree that acquittal is
mandatory if there is an articulable reason, based on the
evidence, or lack of it, of the defendant's guilt.
Yep.
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our
side," the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not
convinced of the defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason
why he is not convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
What if ...
.... you grew a brain?
We don't know Larry, you might actually then sound like someone
who graduated High School much less Law School ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Beaver" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 06:12:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:52:36 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our side,"
the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not convinced of the
defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason why he is not
convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
But that is not the law. No reason it couldn't be. But it's not.
Never has been. It has al;ways been the law that a juror must presume
the defendant is innocent UNTIL he is convinced otherwise.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Unenforcable Court Instructions -- The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 07:07:42 PM |
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:52:36 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our
side," the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not
convinced of the defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason
why he is not convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
But that is not the law.
If the Court's instruction (mandate) to the jury isn't "law" ...
No reason it couldn't be. But it's not.
Perhaps you meant to say it isn't enforceable, but you'd be
hard pressed to find me a Judge who'd admit that the
Court's Instructions aren't "law", just pleasant "suggestions"
to be followed and adhered to only if one has the whimsy and
desire ...
Never has been. It has al;ways been the law that a juror must presume
the defendant is innocent UNTIL he is convinced otherwise.
Yep. The State's burden is (supposedly) quite high.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Unenforcable Court Instructions -- The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 07:56:21 PM |
|
|
In article <uB_%e.119$0e3.7202@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:52:36 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
What we are arguing over is
whether there is a way to state the rule to capture, for "our
side," the middle ground -- where the juror is in fact not
convinced of the defendant's guilt, but has no articulable reason
why he is not convinced.
If he has no reason, he should convict. REASONable mandates
that there be a REASON, ipso facto.
But that is not the law.
If the Court's instruction (mandate) to the jury isn't "law" ...
The Court's instructions to the jury are not law. Many of them are
prefaced as guidelines or suggestions.
No reason it couldn't be. But it's not.
Perhaps you meant to say it isn't enforceable, but you'd be
hard pressed to find me a Judge who'd admit that the
Court's Instructions aren't "law", just pleasant "suggestions"
to be followed and adhered to only if one has the whimsy and
desire ...
Some aspects of the instructions have the force of law - such as the
elements of the crime charged and the definitions for the jury to apply.
Many of them, though, such as how to conduct deliberations, are mere
suggestions or guidance, and are stated to be so by the judge.
Have you ever been on a jury?
Never has been. It has al;ways been the law that a juror must presume
the defendant is innocent UNTIL he is convinced otherwise.
Yep. The State's burden is (supposedly) quite high.
It is quite high. The highest standard in any proceeding.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 01:19:28 AM |
|
|
Prof Jonez wrote
"whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ...""
Geeez, I suppose this could have been much worse for Larry; the song
choice Jonezy made *could* have been the 'Hokey Pokey' <g>
---------------
hey, have a *REASONABLE* day !!!!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:03:05 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
So were you lying when you claimed they could ONLY use
exactly what was presented in evidence at court, and NOTHING more?
I wasn't lying.
They can "use" their common sense to evaluate the "evidence." But
their "verdict" must be based on the "evidence" and nothing else.
Or were you just being a pig-ignorant imbecile again?
For cryin' out loud, I am just telling you what the law *IS.* So is
Jon and everyone else. Don't get personal just because you think
you're
right and every federal and state court in the country is wrong.
But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute
in
the case.
So someone with a Physics background cannot use his common sense
knowlege of physics in a case, say traffic accident, where
speed/acceleration/impact
vectors are in dispute, eh?
Someone with a physics background doesn't have "common sense" about
physics. Nothing is "common" about it if its specialized knowledge.
But the physicist can't do his own experiments and tests in the jury
room. He has to decide what the experiments and tests introduced into
evidence prove.
Well Larry, you claimed to have a different definition, an
objective "term of art", yet you can't seem to produce it when
challenged. So either put up or shut up, Larry.
*I* don't have any definition. Courts do.
For example, here is the pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt
in New York.
<begin quote>
"What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to tell you
how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of
guilty.
The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very
few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant
guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not
sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a
criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must
be beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt
of
the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature
and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary
doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of
this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence
that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
Proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly
convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt
of
the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's
identity
as the person who committed the crime.
<end quote>
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:25:22 PM |
|
|
In article <C%0%e.87$3X4.5952@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
For example, here is the pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt
in New York.
<begin quote>
"What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to tell you
how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of
guilty.
The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very
few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant
guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not
sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a
criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must
be beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt
of
the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature
and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary
doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of
this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence
that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
Proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly
convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt
of
the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's
identity
as the person who committed the crime.
<end quote>
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
I assumed you would miss the important part.
A doubt THAT A REASONABLE PERSON would entertain. In other words, its
not purely subjective. There is an objective component to it.
My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is certainly "a
reason" for me to think they play harder on Thursdays. But is it a
reason that a reasonable person would entertain? I doubt it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 01:42:52 AM |
|
|
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person would entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team' plays
on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
------------------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 06:52:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is certainly "a
reason" for me to think they play harder on Thursdays. But is it a reason
that a reasonable person would entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team' plays
on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty unreasonable
conclusion to draw?
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 12:26:10 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is
certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on
Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person would
entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team' plays
on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty
unreasonable conclusion to draw?
It was a FALSE, ERRONEOUS and pig-headedly WRONG
conclusion for you to draw, though anyone who read your
numerous Usenet postings is used to that by now.
That you had a REASON to make your FALSE conclusion
makes your conclusion REASONable, given your
dysfunctional mental defect.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
<begin quote>
"What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to tell you
how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of
guilty.
The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very
few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant
guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not
sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a
criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must
be beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt
of
the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature
and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary
doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of
this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence
that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
Proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly
convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt
of
the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's
identity
as the person who committed the crime.
<end quote>
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 06:45:50 PM |
|
|
In article <0xe%e.40$Q45.1712@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is
certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on
Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person would
entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team' plays
on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty
unreasonable conclusion to draw?
It was a FALSE, ERRONEOUS and pig-headedly WRONG
conclusion for you to draw, though anyone who read your
numerous Usenet postings is used to that by now.
That you had a REASON to make your FALSE conclusion
makes your conclusion REASONable, given your
dysfunctional mental defect.
So a demonstrably false conclusion, based on mental defect and not any
process of reason whatsoever, but on mere whim and a provably incorrect
premise, is nonetheless "reasonable" just because a person thought of it?
By your definition, nothing can ever be unreasonable!
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
You're a moron. This has been the NY jury instruction for years. I've
tried many cases over the years. You somehow think that my posting this
disproves what I have been telling you the law is. Dimwit.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry punk'd himself once again -- whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 04:57:48 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <0xe%e.40$Q45.1712@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article
<1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Solar"
<williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is
certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on
Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person would
entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team'
plays on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty
unreasonable conclusion to draw?
It was a FALSE, ERRONEOUS and pig-headedly WRONG
conclusion for you to draw, though anyone who read your
numerous Usenet postings is used to that by now.
That you had a REASON to make your FALSE conclusion
makes your conclusion REASONable, given your
dysfunctional mental defect.
So a demonstrably false conclusion, based on mental defect and not any
process of reason whatsoever,
Who said it wasn't based on process of reason, eh Larry?
It was based upon, quite clearly, a defective process of reason,
one which you continually exhibit here.
but on mere whim and a provably
incorrect premise, is nonetheless "reasonable" just because a person
thought of it?
By your definition, nothing can ever be unreasonable!
Another falsehood from the idiot Larry.
If it lacks REASON, it is, ipso facto, UNreasonable.
How can you be so profoundly pig-ignorant of
rudimentary English language structure, eh Larry?
You couldn't have possibly be accepted to any
law school being as stupid are you are.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
You're a moron. This has been the NY jury instruction for years.
Yep, and thanks for posting it to disprove your own
pathetic argument.
I've tried many cases over the years. You somehow think that my
posting this disproves what I have been telling you the law is.
So you disagree with what's been the NY Jury Instruction for years?
Dimwit.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry punk'd himself once again -- whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 05:18:01 PM |
|
|
In article <IHY%e.87$0e3.5100@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <0xe%e.40$Q45.1712@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article
<1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Solar"
<williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is
certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on
Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person would
entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite team'
plays on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty
unreasonable conclusion to draw?
It was a FALSE, ERRONEOUS and pig-headedly WRONG
conclusion for you to draw, though anyone who read your
numerous Usenet postings is used to that by now.
That you had a REASON to make your FALSE conclusion
makes your conclusion REASONable, given your
dysfunctional mental defect.
So a demonstrably false conclusion, based on mental defect and not any
process of reason whatsoever,
Who said it wasn't based on process of reason, eh Larry?
It was based upon, quite clearly, a defective process of reason,
one which you continually exhibit here.
Now you're distorting words. A "defective process of reason" may or may
not produce a reasonable result.
You're saying that any thought that anyone has is reasonable, because
they thought it. Well, if the defense lawyer can think up one reason
why his client isn't guilty, then there is per se a reasonable doubt,
you say.
but on mere whim and a provably
incorrect premise, is nonetheless "reasonable" just because a person
thought of it?
By your definition, nothing can ever be unreasonable!
Another falsehood from the idiot Larry.
If it lacks REASON, it is, ipso facto, UNreasonable.
How can someone think something that they didn't think of through some
thought process?
How can you be so profoundly pig-ignorant of
rudimentary English language structure, eh Larry?
You couldn't have possibly be accepted to any
law school being as stupid are you are.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
You're a moron. This has been the NY jury instruction for years.
Yep, and thanks for posting it to disprove your own
pathetic argument.
I've tried many cases over the years. You somehow think that my
posting this disproves what I have been telling you the law is.
So you disagree with what's been the NY Jury Instruction for years?
Dimwit.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
Notice the "..." before and after the part you cited. The "..." means
there is more, parts that you cut out.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry the Superlative IDIOT, punk'd himself once again -- whoop! ... there it is !! --The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
02 Oct 2005 07:20:38 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <IHY%e.87$0e3.5100@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <0xe%e.40$Q45.1712@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article
<1128062572.848171.204060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"My favorite team winning all their games on Thursdays is
certainly "a reason" for me to think they play harder on
Thursdays. But is it a reason that a reasonable person
would entertain?"
Wellllllllll, if Thursday is the only day your 'favorite
team' plays on, you *might* be on to something... <g>
So you agree that if they play every day, this is a pretty
unreasonable conclusion to draw?
It was a FALSE, ERRONEOUS and pig-headedly WRONG
conclusion for you to draw, though anyone who read your
numerous Usenet postings is used to that by now.
That you had a REASON to make your FALSE conclusion
makes your conclusion REASONable, given your
dysfunctional mental defect.
So a demonstrably false conclusion, based on mental defect and
not any process of reason whatsoever,
Who said it wasn't based on process of reason, eh Larry?
It was based upon, quite clearly, a defective process of reason,
one which you continually exhibit here.
Now you're distorting words. A "defective process of reason" may or
may not produce a reasonable result.
Nope, your pig-ignorance of fundamental English is showing
again Larry. It may produce an erroneous result, as you often
do, but as stated before, for 1000s of years the best minds
of men used all the reason they could muster and determined
that the Sun traveled around the Earth, which of course was
the Center of the Universe.
Reasonable? Yes.
Correct? No
You're saying that any thought that anyone has is reasonable,
because they thought it
No, only an idiot like you would make such a preposterous claim.
Again Larry, a remedial course in rudimentary English and grammatical
construction would do you well, you stammering imbecile.
Well, if the defense lawyer can think up one reason
why his client isn't guilty, then there is per se a reasonable doubt,
you say.
If the Jurors agree, then yes it is Larry.
Even an idiot like you should comprehend that.
but on mere whim and a provably
incorrect premise, is nonetheless "reasonable" just because a
person thought of it?
By your definition, nothing can ever be unreasonable!
Another falsehood from the idiot Larry.
If it lacks REASON, it is, ipso facto, UNreasonable.
How can someone think something that they didn't think of through some
thought process?
Your drool-cup is full again Larry, have the nurse empty it ...
How can you be so profoundly pig-ignorant of
rudimentary English language structure, eh Larry?
You couldn't have possibly be accepted to any
law school being as stupid are you are.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
You're a moron. This has been the NY jury instruction for years.
Yep, and thanks for posting it to disprove your own
pathetic argument.
I've tried many cases over the years. You somehow think that my
posting this disproves what I have been telling you the law is.
So you disagree with what's been the NY Jury Instruction for years?
Dimwit.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
Notice the "..." before and after the part you cited. The "..." means
there is more, parts that you cut out.
Really? Is that what those pesky ellipses are? I wondered how
they kept popping up in my posts ...
Bottom line Larry, you've thoroughly proven yourself to be
an abject idiot on the subject of "reasonable doubt", and
confirmed that no one as laughably stupid as you could
possibly have graduated law school, much less be a practicing
lawyer/prosecutor ANYWHERE in the U$A.
You're a fucking idiot! Really, no joke, no insult, you are
demonstrably the exact meaning and nuance of the word - IDIOT.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
