Evidence to Convict?

[Jesster]

Are you still trying to push for this? Come up with something new.

This is also calling out a specific member, which I was going to report. Someone beat me to the punch, though.

[Astonished]

Why the fuck did he bother with a poll, anyway? Doesn't that imply he actually had a point with any validity to discuss? Where'd he get an idea like that?

[Amarok]

Why the fuck did he bother with a poll, anyway? Doesn't that imply he actually had a point with any validity to discuss? Where'd he get an idea like that?

Because  he thinks like everything else it makes him look smart

[Astonished]

Why the fuck did he bother with a poll, anyway? Doesn't that imply he actually had a point with any validity to discuss? Where'd he get an idea like that?

Because  he thinks like everything else it makes him look smart

That might be the most dangerous delusion of them all.

[chimp3]

If I was on the jury and 12 eyewitnesses said a person struck another it might be enough to convict. If 12 eyewitnesses said Tizheruk pointed at the chair and it flew through the air striking you... 100 eyewitnesses could not convince me. Humans assault each other everyday. People do not rise from the dead, heal leprosy with a touch, levitate into the sky, or multiply food by magic. I would need much more than "eyewitness" testimony to be convinced of that.

[Amarok]

He makes the dumb mistake winston wu makes when not understanding the skeptic argument against eye witnesses testimony. And he gets even less why the bible fails even this.

[Pat Mustard]

So I did post this in another thread, but I thought that many might have tuned out in that, and I'm interested in getting a view of peoples opinions. Besides I never did a poll before, and thought in might be fun, as well as provide an option for those who don't want to comment.  I apologize in advance for those who like many options to a poll, but this is an excluded middle type of question (either A or Not A).


So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with Tizheruk, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured Tizheruk. And their is no other evidence found, with which to specifically identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.

Now none of this is true, it's a hypothetical. Don't worry Tizheruk, I don't wish you any ill will, and actually pray for your wellbeing. However the reasoning behind an answer doesn't rely on it being real (just like substituting a variable into an equation).

How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

---

Also note, I'm not here to discuss or persuade anyone.  I'm interested in others opinions.  Comments welcome...preferably about the topic

Court cases hold themselves to a much lower quantum of evidence than any of the sciences including history. Hearsay is perfectly acceptable in court where no historian worth his doctoral parchment would consider it anywhere near adequate.

[Cyberman]

Wouldn't there be, for example, bloodstains on the chair matching the victim's? Splinters of wood or whatever in the wound matching damage to the chair? Silly physical stuff like that?

Quite apart from that, those dozen witnesses are in one room at the same time giving broadly the same account; which is completely different to any of the gospel characters who are anonymous, appear nowhere else in any record and contradict on important details, while the gospels themselves were written over a protracted period and many years after the alleged fact. Again, one of these things is not like the others.

[RoadRunner79]

This is also calling out a specific member, which I was going to report. Someone beat me to the punch, though.

I was thinking about this after. It was a shameful jab, which was both poor taste and an unwise choice on my part.

Tizheruk I apologize for using your name in my example, for bringing things across threads, and theirs no excuse for taking a shot at you like this. I'm sorry. I also apologize to Tazzy for the same in the other thread

For admins: if you want to change the post to remove the name (make generic), and the cheap shot, please do so. And if you want to leave it there, and I will own up to my poor actions.

[Amarok]

Wouldn't there be, for example, bloodstains on the chair matching the victim's? Splinters of wood or whatever in the wound matching damage to the chair? Silly physical stuff like that?

Quite apart from that, those dozen witnesses are in one room at the same time giving broadly the same account; which is completely different to any of the gospel characters who are anonymous, appear nowhere else in any record and contradict on important details, while the gospels themselves were written over a protracted period and many years after the alleged fact. Again, one of these things is not like the others.

Now watch him make up new details to try and refute it