Posts by HORansome
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Truth is a triple-edged sword. At least, that's what the Vorlon told me.
-
I think we're now talking past one another, actually.
-
I don't want to be seen to be beating a dead horse, but when you said:
"But it will also hear evidence that suggests that the key actors were, at best, alarming clowns who were collecting and training with weapons and other military equipment"
and then clarified it by saying:
"Given what they doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone"
puts the burden of proof on the wrong party.
We have a fairly clear definition of the Burden of Proof when it comes to matters such as these; if it is in front of the courts we require that the Crown prove their case (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why we have a reasonable doubt system in play). We have, at the moment, circumstantial evidence ; the case that will tie that evidence together in a thesis that links the evidence to an intention to cause harm, however possible, has not yet been made and we should make no assumptions about it until it has gone through the proper channels.
Right, with that being said, I have to go teach a class on Critical Thinking. :)
-
Which is why, Craig, I've suggested that Russell rephrase what he's said.
-
You're making a claim about the intentions of some of the people arrested and a paper trail is not sufficient evidence of the intentionality of the agents involved; it certainly isn't sufficient to justify damning the alleged offenders.
This sort of leads on to one of the many points of annoyance I have with the general media and public response to what happened in October 2007, which is that people assumed the arrestees were acting with one mind and had a common purpose (as if they were a cabal of some sort). This is something the Crown has yet to prove beyond reasonable doubt; there is still the distinct possibility that some of the links between the arrestees is mere accident and just guilt by association. Maybe some of the arrestees are, or were, suspicious individuals with motives and wants that the 'average New Zealander' would not approve of, but we must be careful not to assume that all the arrestees are the same. The Crown has to prove that; we should assume otherwise and act on the presumption of innocence.
-
I think you meant to say " Given what they were alleged to be doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone." To say that they were doing what the Crown alleges they were up to seems premature at this stage.
-
I feel very uneasy about messing with the status of a national park.
I feel uneasy about all the confiscated land and, frankly, I'd rather ease that discomfort by giving it back to the legitimate owners (who have expressed desire to keep it a publicly accessible National Park) than preserve my ability to wander about such seized land.
-
The Fortean Times had a great issue on Coulrophobia a while back.
-
Andre:
You might ask for ownership to be returned because a) it's your land and b) you are part of that land. Tuhoe, the People of the Mist, regard Te Urewera as their whenua; they are it and it is them.
-
I'm going to take exception to the following, Russell:
But it will also hear evidence that suggests that the key actors were, at best, alarming clowns who were collecting and training with weapons and other military equipment.
By saying 'at best' you are salting the pot; it suggests that this is the most minimal description that can be applied to the accused (I take it that you are saying their alarming clown-like nature is due to the alleged link between certain members of the accused and certain firearms and that you are not accusing them of being 'alarming clowns' in the literal sense) when, of course, that is the charge the Crown must prove. If you had simply said:
"But it will also hear evidence that suggests that the key actors were alarming clowns who were collecting and training with weapons and other military equipment."
that would have been more sensible.