| 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: "Larry" |
|
| 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 07:57:58 PM |
|
|
In article <CN_%e.121$0e3.6981@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Bottom line Larry, you've thoroughly proven yourself to be
an abject idiot on the subject of "reasonable doubt", and
confirmed that no one as laughably stupid as you could
possibly have graduated law school, much less be a practicing
lawyer/prosecutor ANYWHERE in the U$A.
You're a fucking idiot! Really, no joke, no insult, you are
demonstrably the exact meaning and nuance of the word - IDIOT.
Well, I think several appellate courts will disagree with you. I've
never had a post-trial conviction reversed on appeal. And its not for
defendants' lack of trying.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RHR" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 07:40:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:25:37 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> 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>
Bwaaaahahahhah. All those words to go around in circles and make a
show of tautological profundity!!! It obviously was written by
somebody from the defense shyster community since the idea is to
confuse the average (dummy) juror into thinking there is something
profound about the concept so to be safe, you should acquit.
RHR
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: whoop! ... there it is !! -- The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:04:20 PM |
|
|
RHR wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:25:37 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> 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>
Bwaaaahahahhah. All those words to go around in circles and make a
show of tautological profundity!!! It obviously was written by
somebody from the defense shyster community since the idea is to
confuse the average (dummy) juror into thinking there is something
profound about the concept so to be safe, you should acquit.
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
RHR
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 10:50:51 PM |
|
|
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute in
the case.
So someone with a Physics background cannot use his common sense
knowlege of physics in a case, say traffic accident, where
speed/acceleration/impact
vectors are in dispute, eh?
As a matter of fact, I was excluded from a jury for a reason similar
to that (I was an expert in a topic that could affect the amount of
the judgment in a civil case).
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 11:01:28 PM |
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!>
wrote:
Larry wrote:
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?
As a matter of fact, I was excluded from a jury for a reason similar
to that (I was an expert in a topic that could affect the amount of
the judgment in a civil case).
Yet, they do from time to time empanel entire juries of "experts"
in cases where the subject matter is complex, don't they Seth?
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "RHR" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 08:31:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:01:28 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!>
wrote:
Larry wrote:
But they cannot use any personal
knowledge or information they may have about any issue in dispute
in
the case.
So someone with a Physics background cannot use his common sense
knowlege of physics in a case, say traffic accident, where
speed/acceleration/impact
vectors are in dispute, eh?
As a matter of fact, I was excluded from a jury for a reason similar
to that (I was an expert in a topic that could affect the amount of
the judgment in a civil case).
Yet, they do from time to time empanel entire juries of "experts"
in cases where the subject matter is complex, don't they Seth?
Seth
The shysters have become so powerful that the time honored tradition
of blue ribbon juries has just about disappeared. And the strict
rules against active participation of jurors has muted the effect that
the few smart people that make it to the trial jury can have. Lawyers
become rich by winning weak cases and the biggest impediment to that
comes from having someone with brains, deciding the case.
RHR
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable "common sense" of Larry -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 10:45:08 AM |
|
|
RHR wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:01:28 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <_uI_e.56$Be5.862@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
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?
As a matter of fact, I was excluded from a jury for a reason
similar to that (I was an expert in a topic that could affect the
amount of the judgment in a civil case).
Yet, they do from time to time empanel entire juries of "experts"
in cases where the subject matter is complex, don't they Seth?
Seth
The shysters have become so powerful that the time honored tradition
of blue ribbon juries has just about disappeared. And the strict
rules against active participation of jurors has muted the effect that
the few smart people that make it to the trial jury can have. Lawyers
become rich by winning weak cases and the biggest impediment to that
comes from having someone with brains, deciding the case.
The only people who end up on juries are those too stupid to get out
of jury duty.
RHR
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Beaver" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 07:21:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:01:33 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
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?
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Oh. Yeah. Don't forget. It also has to be objectively
supported by substantial evidence. That too.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 09:33:38 PM |
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:01:33 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
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?
You're confused.
Naw, you're confused, because you snipped out Persecutor Larry's
preposterous contentions.
The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Oh. Yeah. Don't forget. It also has to be objectively
supported by substantial evidence.
Really? How "substantial" ... like exactly?
That too.
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from evidence presented
in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use one iota of life experience,
reality, or common knowlege with them when they deliberate.
So what say you, Beav? Is Larry completely full of ***** once again?
Here's the parts you snipped to refresh your memory:
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 ...
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
06 Oct 2005 08:34:54 PM |
|
|
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from evidence presented
in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use one iota of life experience,
reality, or common knowlege with them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one jury
selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar with the
layout of the building where the crime took place.
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,
No, that's what they're supposed to do.
But is a juror who is familiar with your postings supposed to dismiss
you as a kook, or judge what you claim under oath?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're derived
from. Or you do claim that "flammable" and "inflammable" are
antonyms?
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a juror was
reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential jurors who
failed to meet the standard excluded.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
07 Oct 2005 10:26:32 AM |
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!>
wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from evidence
presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use one iota of
life experience, reality, or common knowlege with them when they
deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one jury
selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar with the
layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
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,
No, that's what they're supposed to do.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
But is a juror who is familiar with your postings supposed to dismiss
you as a kook, or judge what you claim under oath?
Et tu ...?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
Do like them rules, then go speak Yiddish ...
Or you do claim that "flammable" and "inflammable" are
antonyms?
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
<cue crickets chirping>
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a juror was
reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential jurors who
failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh? And certainly not 12 of them. Why
not just go with the 3 Pre-cogs a la The Minority Report ?
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
07 Oct 2005 08:10:59 PM |
|
|
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!>
wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from evidence
presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use one iota of
life experience, reality, or common knowlege with them when they
deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one jury
selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar with the
layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we excused
someone who lived on the block where the crime happened and knew they
layout of the block and neighborhood.
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,
No, that's what they're supposed to do.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors are supposed
to use their common sense and life experiences when evaluating the
evidence.
Jonzey, I'm not going to go through my record with you. But I've
prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction reversed on appeal)
to know I understand the basic legal principles of our judicial system.
Isn't it much more likely that you a) don't understand, or b)
understand, but are intentionally this obtuse?
But is a juror who is familiar with your postings supposed to dismiss
you as a kook, or judge what you claim under oath?
Et tu ...?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
Do like them rules, then go speak Yiddish ...
Or you do claim that "flammable" and "inflammable" are
antonyms?
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
<cue crickets chirping>
"Reason" has multiple meanings. "Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are talking about.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement; this is
what you are talking about.
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a juror was
reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential jurors who
failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh? And certainly not 12 of them. Why
not just go with the 3 Pre-cogs a la The Minority Report ?
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
07 Oct 2005 09:11:20 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we excused
someone who lived on the block where the crime happened and knew they
layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
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,
No, that's what they're supposed to do.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors are
supposed to use their common sense and life experiences when
evaluating the evidence.
Why do you lie, so blatantly so?
Your easily googled posting history proves you
to be a mendacious prevaricator.
Jonzey, I'm not going to go through my record with you.
Utterly irrelevant.
But I've prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction reversed on
appeal) to know I understand the basic legal principles of our
judicial system.
Your pig-ignorant postings in this and other threads prove
you are simply a deluded legal imbecile.
But is a juror who is familiar with your postings supposed to
dismiss you as a kook, or judge what you claim under oath?
Et tu ...?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
Do like them rules, then go speak Yiddish ...
Or you do claim that "flammable" and "inflammable" are
antonyms?
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
<cue crickets chirping>
"Reason" has multiple meanings.
Do tell.
"Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are talking
about.
Yep.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement;
No, and not in the context of this discussion on the BARD standard
in the U$ just-us system.
this is what you are talking about.
Naw, that's your straw man, have fun fucking it, don't forget
the Astro-glide.
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a juror
was reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential
jurors who failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh? And certainly not 12 of them. Why
not just go with the 3 Pre-cogs a la The Minority Report ?
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
07 Oct 2005 10:51:53 PM |
|
|
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we excused
someone who lived on the block where the crime happened and knew they
layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
Well, first of all, it is "peremptory," not "pre-emptory." Not that
lil' ole me should dare to correct such a great legal mind as yours....
Second of all, its a for-cause or consent strike, usually. At least it
was in my case.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
08 Oct 2005 01:59:07 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or
use one iota of life experience, reality, or common
knowlege with them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one jury selection I was on, they excluded people
for being familiar with the layout of the building where the
crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime happened
and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
Well, first of all, it is "peremptory," not "pre-emptory." Not that
lil' ole me should dare to correct such a great legal mind as
yours....
Second of all, its a for-cause or consent strike, usually. At least
it was in my case.
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
"... 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: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
08 Oct 2005 06:50:34 PM |
|
|
In article <3GU1f.21$a96.335@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or
use one iota of life experience, reality, or common
knowlege with them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one jury selection I was on, they excluded people
for being familiar with the layout of the building where the
crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime happened
and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
Well, first of all, it is "peremptory," not "pre-emptory." Not that
lil' ole me should dare to correct such a great legal mind as
yours....
Second of all, its a for-cause or consent strike, usually. At least
it was in my case.
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
Let's review.
I explained to you what the law is. I posted this, which you've
repeatedly quoted. It's a direct quote of NY jury instructions, which I
have heard dozens of times. I've explained to you what they mean.
Yet you somehow think that this minor snippet, after removing several
sentences that further define "reasonable," somehow proves your point.
That, Jonez, is not "reasonable." Under anyone's definition.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry the consummate idiot! -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
08 Oct 2005 07:09:06 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <3GU1f.21$a96.335@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot
bring or use one iota of life experience, reality, or
common knowlege with them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one jury selection I was on, they excluded people
for being familiar with the layout of the building where
the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim
of absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime
happened and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
Well, first of all, it is "peremptory," not "pre-emptory." Not
that lil' ole me should dare to correct such a great legal mind as
yours....
Second of all, its a for-cause or consent strike, usually. At
least it was in my case.
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
Let's review.
I explained to you what the law is.
No, you pathetically attempted to spew what
"your version" of the law should be, in spite
of the facts against you.
I posted this, which you've repeatedly quoted.
Yep, after you were challenged and dodged numerous times
to refute the original nexus of this thread, that
a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt.
It's a direct quote of NY jury instructions,
which I have heard dozens of times. I've explained to you what they
mean.
Yep, and once you finally posted a citation to law, low and
behold it was utterly dispositive of the laughable crap you
were claiming, and 100% in line with the original
statement -- to wit:
a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt.
Yet you somehow think that this minor snippet, after removing several
sentences that further define "reasonable," somehow proves your point.
Do tell Larry. You fucked youself, and now you're trying to extract
your fist from you ***** hoping that no one will notice.
That, Jonez, is not "reasonable." Under anyone's definition.
Original statement of fact:
"a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt."
Larry's "refutation" from NY law:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
Whoop!
There it IS!!
ROTFLMAO !!
You're an idiot Larry, decidedly the most ignorant lawyer at
bar in the State of NY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry the consummate idiot! -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
09 Oct 2005 12:54:54 AM |
|
|
In article <FcZ1f.27$gK3.1215@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <3GU1f.21$a96.335@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot
bring or use one iota of life experience, reality, or
common knowlege with them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one jury selection I was on, they excluded people
for being familiar with the layout of the building where
the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim
of absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime
happened and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
Well, first of all, it is "peremptory," not "pre-emptory." Not
that lil' ole me should dare to correct such a great legal mind as
yours....
Second of all, its a for-cause or consent strike, usually. At
least it was in my case.
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
Let's review.
I explained to you what the law is.
No, you pathetically attempted to spew what
"your version" of the law should be, in spite
of the facts against you.
I have never offered my opinion as to what the law "should be," or how I
think "reasonable doubt" should be defined. What I, and others
including Seth and Jon, have done is explain to you what the law IS.
Rather than accept it and disagree - something which many people do, you
refuse to even acknowledge what the law currently is.
I posted this, which you've repeatedly quoted.
Yep, after you were challenged and dodged numerous times
to refute the original nexus of this thread, that
a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt.
I haven't dodged anything, I have refuted it.
If you look at the rest of the jury instruction I posted - not the
phrase you repeat ad infinitum, but the entirety of it, you will see the
flaw in your reasoning.
The jury instruction specifically says "It is an actual doubt, not an
imaginary doubt," citing Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 17-20 (1994).
In that case, the Supreme Court specifically said that a reasonable
doubt is an ³actual and substantial doubt...as distinguished from a
doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from
fanciful conjecture²
Likewise, the jury instructions continue: "Whatever your verdict may be,
it must not rest upon baseless speculations."
What these all mean is that there can be doubts that are not reasonable
doubts, even if there is a reason for having the doubt. If the reason
is speculative, or imaginary, or theoretical, then it is NOT a
reasonable doubt. It is only a reasonable doubt if there is a reason
*based on the evidence* to doubt the defendant's guilt.
Again, Jonez, you may or may not like it, but don't attack "my opinion,"
because this isn't it. This is the state of the law. I've never
indicated whether I agree or disagree with this definition of reasonable
doubt.
It's a direct quote of NY jury instructions,
which I have heard dozens of times. I've explained to you what they
mean.
Yep, and once you finally posted a citation to law, low and
behold it was utterly dispositive of the laughable crap you
were claiming, and 100% in line with the original
statement -- to wit:
a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt.
Yet you somehow think that this minor snippet, after removing several
sentences that further define "reasonable," somehow proves your point.
Do tell Larry. You fucked youself, and now you're trying to extract
your fist from you ***** hoping that no one will notice.
That, Jonez, is not "reasonable." Under anyone's definition.
Original statement of fact:
"a Juror who has REASON to doubt, has REASONable doubt."
Larry's "refutation" from NY law:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
My "refutation" is that it cannot be any doubt for any reason
whatsoever. For example, speculation, bias, prejudice, or guess cannot
be the basis for a reasonable doubt. This is not only born out in the
selections of the jury instructions I cited above, but also from this
part "After carefully evaluating the evidence, each of you must decide
whether or not that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of
the defendant's guilt. "
In other words, the jury must evaluate THE EVIDENCE and determine if
there is a reasonable doubt BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. A reason based on
anything other than the jurors' analysis of the evidence cannot be the
basis for a reasonable doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RHR" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry the consummate idiot! -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
09 Oct 2005 08:04:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:54:54 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
I have never offered my opinion as to what the law "should be," or how I
think "reasonable doubt" should be defined. What I, and others
including Seth and Jon, have done is explain to you what the law IS.
Correction. What the law IS in your parochial world. But in your
favor, it must be said that your kindness in continually feeding
trolls and twits is much appreciated, by them.
RHR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry the consummate idiot! -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
09 Oct 2005 01:15:22 PM |
|
|
In article <cs4ik19gh4n788e96lj5pshvd3agvrmhih@4ax.com>,
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:54:54 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
I have never offered my opinion as to what the law "should be," or how I
think "reasonable doubt" should be defined. What I, and others
including Seth and Jon, have done is explain to you what the law IS.
Correction. What the law IS in your parochial world.
Well, what the law in NY and the US is, subjective opinion of that law
aside. ;)
But in your
favor, it must be said that your kindness in continually feeding
trolls and twits is much appreciated, by them.
I'm a glutton for the punishment, I guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
09 Oct 2005 06:29:26 AM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <3GU1f.21$a96.335@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Larry the Village Idiot wrote:
"... a REASONable doubt is an honest doubt of
the defendant's guilt for which a REASON exists ..."
whoop! ... there it is !!
Let's review.
You couldn't tell the truth with a compass and a road map. That is
the bottom line, Lar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
11 Oct 2005 11:12:19 AM |
|
|
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can only be
derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
No, but he has the ability to read what I wrote and understand the
intended meaning.
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we excused
someone who lived on the block where the crime happened and knew they
layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
In the case I was not selected for, that was considered sufficient
cause.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors are
supposed to use their common sense and life experiences when
evaluating the evidence.
Why do you lie, so blatantly so?
Your easily googled posting history proves you
to be a mendacious prevaricator.
So where's the reference? Give the Message-ID of the article in which
he wrote what you claim he wrote.
But I've prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction reversed on
appeal) to know I understand the basic legal principles of our
judicial system.
Your pig-ignorant postings in this and other threads prove
you are simply a deluded legal imbecile.
But his "delusions" match the actual legal system in use, as it
actually works. Whether or not that's the way it _should_ work is a
separate issue.
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
The question is a particular word's meaning, not whether other words
derive their meanings in various ways.
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
"Derived from" does not imply meaning.
"Reason" has multiple meanings.
Do tell.
"Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are talking
about.
Yep.
Except you.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement;
No, and not in the context of this discussion on the BARD standard
in the U$ just-us system.
Someone can give his "reason" for doing something, which any sane
person would find "unreasonable". (Or do you think Son of Sam's
murders were reasonable?)
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
I'm _not_ a psychologist. What part of "not" is too hard for you to
understand?
For that matter, I didn't come up with the limit of 20 (which varies
by hierarchy, anyway; some use 3).
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a juror
was reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential
jurors who failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh?
Why not? We currently limit juries to sane people, but we still use
multiple jurors in trials.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
11 Oct 2005 05:10:33 PM |
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or
use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege
with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being
familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
No, but he has the ability to read what I wrote and understand the
intended meaning.
Well, if you wrote clearer and more concisely, the meaning
would be obvious and not require interpretive intent.
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime happened
and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
In the case I was not selected for, that was considered sufficient
cause.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors are
supposed to use their common sense and life experiences when
evaluating the evidence.
Why do you lie, so blatantly so?
Your easily googled posting history proves you
to be a mendacious prevaricator.
So where's the reference? Give the Message-ID of the article in which
he wrote what you claim he wrote.
You're a big boy Seth, you can google it yourself.
But I've prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction
reversed on appeal) to know I understand the basic legal
principles of our
judicial system.
Your pig-ignorant postings in this and other threads prove
you are simply a deluded legal imbecile.
But his "delusions" match the actual legal system in use, as it
actually works. Whether or not that's the way it _should_ work is a
separate issue.
So his delusions that Jurors actually do use tabla rosa sterility when
judging a case is reality, eh Seth?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're
derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
The question is a particular word's meaning, not whether other words
derive their meanings in various ways.
So define "reasonable" then, specifically and with citation to
working U$ law/jury instruction.
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple
sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
"Derived from" does not imply meaning.
Nor does it negate it. What's your point?
"Reason" has multiple meanings.
Do tell.
"Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are talking
about.
Yep.
Except you.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement;
No, and not in the context of this discussion on the BARD standard
in the U$ just-us system.
Someone can give his "reason" for doing something, which any sane
person would find "unreasonable".
Got a citation to any State's Jury Instruction on BARD that
uses your statement above?
(Or do you think Son of Sam's
murders were reasonable?)
They certainly were to David Berkowitz. Good thing the U$ Jury
instructions don't state "beyond a reasonable doubt as your dog
telepathically instructs you ..."
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
I'm _not_ a psychologist. What part of "not" is too hard for you to
understand?
For that matter, I didn't come up with the limit of 20 (which varies
by hierarchy, anyway; some use 3).
You wish ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a
juror
was reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential
jurors who failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh?
Why not? We currently limit juries to sane people, but we still use
multiple jurors in trials.
Why? If the standard is so "objective" as idiot Larry, and apparently you,
now claim, and only "sane" jurors are allowed to serve, then why require
more than 1 (one), eh?
Why limit it to a unanimity? Why not a plurality or even a bare majority?
Bare majorities are good enough for Appeals courts who decied life and
death issues about individual human lives, and we all know that
cannot be any insane Judges serving anywhere in the U$A, right Seth?
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
11 Oct 2005 11:06:03 PM |
|
|
In article <DLW2f.76$gz6.2291@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot bring or
use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege
with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being
familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim of
absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
No, but he has the ability to read what I wrote and understand the
intended meaning.
Well, if you wrote clearer and more concisely, the meaning
would be obvious and not require interpretive intent.
His meaning was quite clear. "Interpretive intent?" Ha!
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime happened
and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
In the case I was not selected for, that was considered sufficient
cause.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors are
supposed to use their common sense and life experiences when
evaluating the evidence.
Why do you lie, so blatantly so?
Your easily googled posting history proves you
to be a mendacious prevaricator.
So where's the reference? Give the Message-ID of the article in which
he wrote what you claim he wrote.
You're a big boy Seth, you can google it yourself.
He can't google what doesn't exist. You made the claim, back it up.
Troll.
But I've prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction
reversed on appeal) to know I understand the basic legal
principles of our
judicial system.
Your pig-ignorant postings in this and other threads prove
you are simply a deluded legal imbecile.
But his "delusions" match the actual legal system in use, as it
actually works. Whether or not that's the way it _should_ work is a
separate issue.
So his delusions that Jurors actually do use tabla rosa sterility when
judging a case is reality, eh Seth?
I never said what jurors do or do not do. I told you what they were
instructed to do.
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do not
necessarily derive their meanings from the words they're
derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
The question is a particular word's meaning, not whether other words
derive their meanings in various ways.
So define "reasonable" then, specifically and with citation to
working U$ law/jury instruction.
Why should he have to? I already did, and Jon and others have chimed in
with other definitions.
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple
sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth, the
exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
"Derived from" does not imply meaning.
Nor does it negate it. What's your point?
"Reason" has multiple meanings.
Do tell.
"Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are talking
about.
Yep.
Except you.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement;
No, and not in the context of this discussion on the BARD standard
in the U$ just-us system.
Someone can give his "reason" for doing something, which any sane
person would find "unreasonable".
Got a citation to any State's Jury Instruction on BARD that
uses your statement above?
You have to get over the idea that just because someone has a reason for
doing something that makes it reasonable. "I tied up my mailman and
tortured him for 4 days because my mail was 20 minutes late today."
It's a reason, but it ain't reasonable. It certainly ain't reasonable
just because the defendant says it is.
(Or do you think Son of Sam's
murders were reasonable?)
They certainly were to David Berkowitz. Good thing the U$ Jury
instructions don't state "beyond a reasonable doubt as your dog
telepathically instructs you ..."
They were subjectively reasonable to an insane person. Yet this isn't
good enough for an acquittal - why? *Because there's an obvious
objective component to the analysis* You don't have a clue, Jonzey.
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
I'm _not_ a psychologist. What part of "not" is too hard for you to
understand?
For that matter, I didn't come up with the limit of 20 (which varies
by hierarchy, anyway; some use 3).
You wish ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
But if there were an algorithm to measure whether or not a
juror
was reasonable, I wouldn't be at all surpised to see potential
jurors who failed to meet the standard excluded.
Then we wouldn't need Jurors, eh?
Why not? We currently limit juries to sane people, but we still use
multiple jurors in trials.
Why? If the standard is so "objective" as idiot Larry, and apparently you,
now claim, and only "sane" jurors are allowed to serve, then why require
more than 1 (one), eh?
It is not an objective standard. There is an objective aspect to it -
big difference. If it was entirely objective, we wouldn't need one
juror, the lawyers could just sit down and do the calculations and come
up with the grand answer of whether or not the defendant was being
reasonable.
Why limit it to a unanimity? Why not a plurality or even a bare majority?
Bare majorities are good enough for Appeals courts who decied life and
death issues about individual human lives, and we all know that
cannot be any insane Judges serving anywhere in the U$A, right Seth?
Plenty of states allow convictions with less than unanimous juries.
Virginia, I think allows 5-out-of-6 or 10-out-of-12 votes of guilty to
equal a conviction.'
Besides, you can't compare juries with appellate courts. Juries decide
issues of fact, appellate courts decide issues of law.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
12 Oct 2005 01:16:13 AM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <DLW2f.76$gz6.2291@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <eVF1f.456$o93.544@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <Msw1f.397$o93.45@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <GnI_e.55$Be5.962@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof.
Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Yet Larry, Seth and BO claim it can ONLY be derived from
evidence presented in the court, the Jurors cannot
bring or use
one iota of life experience, reality, or common knowlege
with
them when they deliberate.
No, I claim that _factual information about the case_ can
only be derived from the testimony and exhibits there. In
fact, on one
jury selection I was on, they excluded people for being
familiar
with the layout of the building where the crime took
place.
Which of course is contrary to idiot Larry's orignal claim
of absolute tabla rosa for the Jurors.
No, what Seth said is
You speak for Seth now, eh Larry?
No, but he has the ability to read what I wrote and understand the
intended meaning.
Well, if you wrote clearer and more concisely, the meaning
would be obvious and not require interpretive intent.
what I "claimed." That's how the system works,
and how it's supposed to work. From the last jury I picked we
excused someone who lived on the block where the crime
happened
and knew they layout of the block and neighborhood.
So? What it pre-emptory or for cause?
In the case I was not selected for, that was considered sufficient
cause.
Yep, contrary to idiot Larry's original claims.
Oh, please. I'm the one who first stated to you that urors
are supposed to use their common sense and life experiences
when evaluating the evidence.
Why do you lie, so blatantly so?
Your easily googled posting history proves you
to be a mendacious prevaricator.
So where's the reference? Give the Message-ID of the article in
which he wrote what you claim he wrote.
You're a big boy Seth, you can google it yourself.
But I've prosecuted enough cases (and never had a conviction
reversed on appeal) to know I understand the basic legal
principles of our
judicial system.
Your pig-ignorant postings in this and other threads prove
you are simply a deluded legal imbecile.
But his "delusions" match the actual legal system in use, as it
actually works. Whether or not that's the way it _should_ work
is a separate issue.
So his delusions that Jurors actually do use tabla rosa sterility
when judging a case is reality, eh Seth?
I never said what jurors do or do not do. I told you what they were
instructed to do.
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun
Reason.
If you don't like that, then change the English
language.
In the English Language used by rational people, words do
not necessarily derive their meanings from the words
they're derived
from.
Yet, in the vast majority of cases they clearly do.
The question is a particular word's meaning, not whether other
words derive their meanings in various ways.
So define "reasonable" then, specifically and with citation to
working U$ law/jury instruction.
Why should he have to? I already did, and Jon and others have chimed
in with other definitions.
"Other" definitions? ...? LOL! ... and of course that makes an "objective"
standard, eh? LOL!
Being English is a ***** language stolen from multiple
sources,
there are exceptions to the rules. Funny thing though Seth,
the exception you cited is clearly dileneated in every
dictionary.
Got a citation that is dispositive of the fact that
REASONable
is the adjective derrived from the noun REASON ?
"Derived from" does not imply meaning.
Nor does it negate it. What's your point?
"Reason" has multiple meanings.
Do tell.
"Reason" is a process of logical
thought; which is what Seth and I (and everyone else) are
talking about.
Yep.
Except you.
"Reason" is also a label that can be applied to any statement;
No, and not in the context of this discussion on the BARD
standard
in the U$ just-us system.
Someone can give his "reason" for doing something, which any sane
person would find "unreasonable".
Got a citation to any State's Jury Instruction on BARD that
uses your statement above?
You have to get over the idea that just because someone has a reason
for doing something that makes it reasonable.
It clearly does, ipso facto, to the PERSON who made the conclusion,
however erroneous, wrong or unacceptable that REASON may be to
OTHER people.
Do try and pay attention Larry.
"I tied up my mailman
and tortured him for 4 days because my mail was 20 minutes late
today."
It's a reason, but it ain't reasonable.
Sure it is moron, to the jackass like you who would do such a think.
You think your lame vapid off-point analogies are REASONable,
yet other's would disagree. Fortunately the Jury instructions in the
USA don't state - "beyond a reasonable doubt that is acceptable
to the idiot prosecutor Larry from NY ..."
It certainly ain't reasonable
just because the defendant says it is.
It certainly IS reasonable to the Defendant, and
REASONable to any Juror who might also concur.
That's the whole point jackass, that the SUBJECTIVE
standard of REASONable is entire in the mind of
the individual jurors.
(Or do you think Son of Sam's
murders were reasonable?)
They certainly were to David Berkowitz. Good thing the U$ Jury
instructions don't state "beyond a reasonable doubt as your dog
telepathically instructs you ..."
They were subjectively reasonable to an insane person.
Now you're catching on. It really wasn't that hard once
you grasped some elementary English comprehension, now
was it Larry?
Yet this isn't good enough for an acquittal - why? *Because there's an
obvious
objective component to the analysis* You don't have a clue, Jonzey.
LOL! Sez the stammering jackass who can't comprehend that
the BARD charge to the Jury is ENTIRELY subjective to the
individual jurors. That's just the way it is in the real world Larry,
in spite of your delusions of the way is should be.
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,
No, I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.
So explain the arbitrary psychology of BI20 ... as opposed
to BI30 or BI10 ...
I'm _not_ a psychologist. What part of "not" is too hard for you
to understand?
For that matter, I didn't come up with the limit of 20 (which
varies
by hierarchy, anyway; some use 3).
You wish ...
then automatically cancel any of them that didn't
meet his arbitrary standard ...
| | | | | | | | | | |
