Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Crackpot]

To be fair I have recently leaned that merely Living in EL Paso renders you immune to adapting modern design/engineering practices (by that I mean standards set over 20 years ago). Don't get me wrong many places (even local) are just as far behind but they at least know to be ashamed of or give a big discount for thier lack of skill. El Paso? We don't need to know that stuff let the tool shop figure it out.

[BoSoxGal]

Look who fabricates evidence and/or takes in entirely out of context.

My reasoned contributions to the discussion about criminal law practice and my admiration for both roles, and most who practice in them, is evinced all over this board and the CSB.

You might want to put aside your fixation for shitting on my posts before you totally destroy your credibility on the subject. Stick to evidence-based arguments rather than personal attack, why don't you?

[Lord Jim]

Look who fabricates evidence and/or takes in entirely out of context.

Gee, you say that like it comes as some sort of surprise...

before you totally destroy your credibility on the subject.

I'm afraid that choo-choo pulled out of the station a couple of weeks ago....

If he had any grasp at all of what his Team Troll antics did to destroy his credibility and reputation here, he'd be focusing on trying to restore them; it's too late to save what he's already lost. He needs to start over. But I'm sure he's too delusional and arrogant to grasp this fact.

You're not going to change him, BSG. All that engaging him in this discussion now amounts to is what the fellar in this picture is doing:



And guess which one in the picture enjoys it?

Getting into a back and forth with him on this just gives him the chance to oink and squeal some more....

[Andrew D]

Stick to evidence-based arguments rather than personal attack ....

Oh, let's do.

What evidence do you want?

If I were to post that someone would kill to protect her children, what evidence would you want?

What evidence would you demand that I produce to prove that someone would do something which that person has not (yet) been in the position of having to decide whether to do?

Let's talk evidence.

(Typo edit.)

[BoSoxGal]

I've been in the position to subporn perjury - which presents itself to any attorney, as you well know. I didn't do it as a civil practitioner, as a defense attorney, and would not do so as a prosecutor - EVER, for any reason. I take the ethical mandates of my oath seriously.

The ease with which you contemplate and assume unethical practice only reflects on you. Continuing to try smearing me, absent credible evidence which simply does not - and never will - exist, is beyond pathetic. I didn't expect you to display the character requisite to provide an apology to me upon your return, but I did expect you to have the good sense not to continue in baseless character assassination. I see I misjudged.

[Andrew D]

is there something about this question, in the specific and in the general:

If I were to post that someone would kill to protect her children, what evidence would you want?

What evidence would you demand that I produce to prove that someone would do something which that person has not (yet) been in the position of having to decide whether to do?

that you find befuddling?

Am I somehow failing to make myself clear?

Do you have an answer?

You're the one who said that we should talk about evidence.

Here I am, trying to talk about evidence.

Where are you?

Do you have an answer?

[Scooter]

The answer is that justifiable defence of others is a legitimate course of action, and suborning perjury is not.

[Andrew D]

That is an answer to some other question.

The present question is about evidence.

The question is not whether it is good or bad that a parent would kill to protect her or his children. The question is not about whether it is good or bad that a prosecutor would suborn perjury to convict a serial killer.

The question is how would one go about proving that a particular parent would kill to protect her or his children, given that that particular parent has never been in the position of having to make that choice. The question is how one would go about proving that a particular prosecutor would suborn perjury to convict a serial killer, given that that particular prosecutor has never been in the position of having to make that choice.

Let's talk evidence.

[Scooter]

bsg never asserted that a parent would kill to protect his or her chidren. Why would she have to provide evidence to support an assertion she did not advance?

You, OTOH, have as yet provided no evidence supporting the assertion that most prosecutors would suborn perjury if they believed it to be necessary.

[Scooter]

But since I'm in a generous mood...

If you wanted to provide evidence that parents would kill to protect their children, you might produce a compendium of cases in which children were in danger and their parents were in a position to kill in order to protect them, and determine how many did so.

Which is precisely the sort of evidence you did not present in support of your assertion that most prosecutors would suborn perjury if they thought it necessary.

[Andrew D]

Well, other people who have read what I produced disagree. Other people have said that I have produced evidence supporting my assertion.

Maybe the evidence which I have produced is sufficient. Maybe the evidence which I have produced is not sufficient.

How do we tell?

That is the question:

What evidence is necessary to support the assertion that someone would do something which that person has never been forced to decide whether or not to do?

[Scooter]

Perhaps there is no evidence that one could produce to support such an assertion.

Perhaps, then, the responsible course of action would be to avoid making such accusations devoid of any evidence.

[Andrew D]

Perhaps there is no evidence that one could produce to support such an assertion.

Perhaps, then, the responsible course of action would be to avoid making such accusations devoid of any evidence.

The assertion is, of course, not "devoid of any evidence".

It may be devoid of enough evidence to persuade some people. It may be devoid of enough evidence to persuade most people. But it is not devoid of any evidence.

So how much evidence is enough?

The conclusions reached by a reputable investigative reporter, vetted and published by a reputable magazine, are evidently not enough. Rational inferences drawn from statistical evidence compiled by responsible people are evidently not enough.

So what is enough?

If your position is that the only way to prove, satisfactorily to you, that most prosecutors would suborn perjury in order to convict a serial killer who could not be convicted by any honest means is a pile of sworn affidavits from prosecutors to that effect, then just come out and say so.

Or if your position is something else, come out and say that.

What evidence would be necessary to satisfy you?

[Scooter]

The conclusions reached by a reputable investigative reporter, vetted and published by a reputable magazine, are evidently not enough.

Perhaps you could point out the words where said reputable investigative reporter reached the conclusion that most prosecutors would suborn perjury if they believed it to be necessary, because I am unable to see them.

Rational inferences drawn from statistical evidence compiled by responsible people are evidently not enough.

What constitutes a "rational inference" is, of course, a completely subjective assessment by those drawing it.

[Andrew D]

What constitutes a "rational inference" is, of course, a completely subjective assessment by those drawing it.

Bingo!

Rational inferences are subjective assessments. And we rely on them -- our own and others' -- all the time.

If I were to post:

Most people would scream if their fingernails and toenails were pulled out with rusty pliers.

would you question that?

Would you be demanding that I produce some sort of evidence to support that assertion?

No.

You would readily accept that assertion, because it seems to you obvious.

If I were to post:

Most parents would kill to protect their children.

would you question that?

Would you be demanding that I produce some sort of evidence to support that assertion?

No.

You would readily accept that assertion, because it seems to you obvious.

But I post something about what most prosecutors would do -- emphatically not asserting that most prosecutors have done so -- and suddenly I need to hurdle some undefinable and insurmountable evidentiary barrier.

Why?

Because my assertion does not seem to you obvious.

[Scooter]

No. It does not seem obvious at all to me that most people who have sworn an oath to uphold the law would choose to subvert it if it became convenient to do so. Forgive me, but to me that scenario is nowhere near as "obvious" as the others that you have posed.

[Andrew D]

So will you answer the question?

Will anyone answer the question?

What evidence is enough?

[Lord Jim]

Perhaps there is no evidence that one could produce to support such an assertion.

Perhaps, then, the responsible course of action would be to avoid making such accusations devoid of any evidence.

That is PRECISELY correct.

He foolishly asserted as a "fact" a proposition, the nature of which was such, that no proof for it could logically be provided....

But when challenged on this, rather than recognize his blunder, and either retract his ridiculous assertion or say something rational like, "Well, no I can't provide proof for it, it's just my opinion" he went into full attack mode for the better part of a week, throwing every trick in the troll playbook at those challenging his preposterous assertion; mischaracterizing, deflecting, smearing, harassing, first telling people to look up the proof, and then claiming that he had provided it with something that in no way backed up his claim, desperately trying to change the subject, lying about what both he and others had said, etc. etc. etc.....

A frenzied effort designed to do one thing; bully, berate and wear down those who had called him on his fuck up into silence....

Then he left . I had hoped he would take the time away to straighten out his head and finally man up about his screw up...but no, his departure was apparently just another performance in his new found role of Forum Diva....

He was just getting his second wind...he returned after a couple of days picking up exactly where he left off, his ego apparently leaving him totally incapable of doing anything else.

And though I haven't read his latest "contributions" today, I can see from Scooter and BSG's posts that he still hasn't learned a damn thing....And has once again set himself to the task of convincing anyone left who had any doubt, of what a dishonest, vicious fool he has become.

How can a man who is so smart behave so stupidly?

[Andrew D]

No. It does not seem obvious at all to me that most people who have sworn an oath to uphold the law would choose to subvert it if it became convenient to do so. Forgive me, but to me that scenario is nowhere near as "obvious" as the others that you have posed.

Exactly.

Because my assertion does not seem to you obvious.

So let's just get clear the standards of proof.

If I make an assertion whose truth seems to you obvious, then no evidence is required.

If I make an assertion whose truth does not seem to you obvious, then I am required to produce a quantum of evidence which you could not, if pressed, produce to support an assertion whose truth seems to you obvious.

That about sums it up, right?

[Sue U]

That will always be the case, Andrew. To convince someone of something he already believes to be true takes very little evidence, but to persuade him that the truth is something other than what he believes requires monumental effort. How much persuasion is enough? How much evidence, and of what quality, constitutes proof? Surely you know this -- it's what we do as lawyers.