2 ms·
establishing a truth and proving it 'without a reasonable doubt' are different things. if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is th
by Vitaly 15y ago
establishing a truth and proving it 'without a reasonable doubt' are different things.
if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else.
In this case, trial might be required to charge this guy with anything, but you can see him driving away with the laptop just as it was stolen. might not be enough to charge with theft, but pretty much enough for me.
- raganwald 15y agoif you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else. I don't think you know why we have trials. We don't have trials to convince everyone else. We have trials because your eyesight alone is not sufficient evidence, you need to consider all of the facts, not just what you think you saw.
- tzs 15y agoIf I commit act X, which is illegal, but I cannot be convicted because an error in police precedure makes some of the evidence inadmissible, it sounds like you believe that means I did not actually do X. That is not how causality works in this universe.