Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's my favorite conspiracy theory...
The term "conspiracy theory" has been deliberately devalued and codified so that whenever you read or hear it, your brain receives "FALSE conspiracy theory and the nutters who beleive/promote them"...
This has, of course been done by the "them" who have actual real conspiracies to hide.
"Their" other trick is to spread and promote false ones, so as to draw attention away from the real ones, and to spread more doubt about any of them....
I have no idea as to it's validity... I just think it's fun to think about.
-
So if I wanted to do something by a certain date, and I foresaw possible delays.... I think I'd get started as soon as possible.
These people who forsee "possible" delays to their consents for certain parts of the "project'...... I sure hope they've actually started the process of getting them? I mean, that way, you could well be delayed and still complete on time....
You wouldnt want to wait until only six months out, and then need to get special legislation passed because it just wasnt possible to complete the due process in time, would you?
I mean, if you'd already started to get consent.... you might even know by now if there were going to be delays or not...
-
Craig.... I was talking about the Presidents armed bodyguards (whether from the USA or iraq) not over-reacting on the spot....
I did not mean to suggest that I thought he might be dragged out of the room and then summarily executed once any present and imminent danger had clearly passed....
I meant he might not have got to throw the second shoe...
-
I'm somewhat surprised (but also relieved) that the shoe thrower isn't full of bullet holes now...
-
Willem Dafoe may make the advertisement less aweful, but there's nothing he can do to change the product....
-
It's tough being a parent....
One moment you think to yourself "I need to let them have more freedom, not make so many rules, let them adventure"
And then when they come to you crying... having just minor-ly injured themselves while doing something that went entirely predictably (by an adult) wrong... and you say to them "So, why do you think I told you not to do that?".
You cant win :)
Are you a vindictive arsehole or enabling their learning if you let them into foreseeable prat-falls?
-
But that's negligence. I can see that being different from murder.
I was too quick in my analogy.... what if the vehicle manufacturer wasnt just negligent in not discovering an obvious flaw.... but actually knew about it and suppressed it... (tobacco companies?)
It would be easy to morally equate that with murder, but "wrongful death" is probably all that would be found legally?
But again I agree.... it's not logical that you can be responsible for the wrongfull death of someone but not their murder, when there is absolutely no suggestion of a third party assasin or other mechanism where it wasnt you holding the weapon?And the only logical conclusion is the different levels of proof...
Lets say there are plausible but unlikely circumstances where you might not be guilty...... "beyond all reasonable doubt" Maybe not, but "on the balance of probabilities" YES. -
The whole OJ thing is filed in the "this is so way weird, and any source of "facts" too tainted (at least according to the "other side"), that I can never be sure I will KNOW the answer, so that I dont even try too hard as it's waste of time attempting" folder of my brain...
which is the long way of saying
I agree, it doesnt make proper sense, but I dont let it bother me anymore. -
But if your relatives die in a car that failed from not just poor, but negligent design... you cant sue Ford or whoever for murder.... but they can be found responsible for "wrongful death".
So yes, it's somewhat nonsensical to be able to be tried for both... but if he did do it, surely it's better that he was found guilty of something than nothing at all?
Presumably, many criminals that are guilty could also be civilly liable... but most of them dont have the cash reserves or income capacity to make prosecution worthwhile?
Just as in the Veitch case... financial reparation (whether voluntary or court ordered) doesnt make it right, or void guilt, but surely it's less bad than nothing at all....
-
The civil case was not "murder" but "wrongful death".
The reason it was possible for (sane) juries to come to conflicting conclusions based on essentially the same evidence was because the level of proof required in the criminal and civil cases is not the same..... The criminal level of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt".... the civil case only requires "on the balance of probabilities" (or something like that).
This is all based simply on my recollection of media stories, not any legal training.