Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

So it's been two days now... the police have to release me, without any evidence.  The victim was in critical condition, but now he(and the hospital) have been cleansed of any physical evidence. Just in case.  There are even more witnesses, but they have no facts or information with which to indicate that I am guilty of wrong doing as true.  They are pissed... but it must be irrational, since they have no facts with which to reasonably believe that I did anything. 

See you tomorrow.

Well, if a certain asshole hadn't arranged for there to be no actual evidence (fat fucking chance), that wouldn't be an issue. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. But hey, at least you managed to at least attempt to scrape together a case, even if that case is "in the absence of any other evidence, no matter how bad or unreliable testimony is, it must be believed unquestioningly 100% of the time in every case." Congratu-fucking-lations. William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort would be SO proud.

[Amarok]

I recently clarified that the offer to discuss is open to anyone.

Yup and no ones buying it . Because we know you.

 

If you would like to demonstrate

No need it's been done for the last 16 pages
 

rather than just pontificate.

It's only pontification if it's not based in fact . It's based in fact this thread

Just make a thread.

To do the same tired song and dance as this thread . Were your claims are debunked and you act like you still have somthing to say and credibilty .

Hmm... how will he respond folks...(no one needs to guesses )

⦁ Be a guliable idiot and ignore this thread and waste time doing this all over again
⦁ Turn you down in a manner greater then you deserve
⦁ Give you the toungue lashing you deserve . State the clear fact that debating is a waste of time. And do so with justfied confidence

[RoadRunner79]

So it's been two days now... the police have to release me, without any evidence.  The victim was in critical condition, but now he(and the hospital) have been cleansed of any physical evidence. Just in case.  There are even more witnesses, but they have no facts or information with which to indicate that I am guilty of wrong doing as true.  They are pissed... but it must be irrational, since they have no facts with which to reasonably believe that I did anything. 

See you tomorrow.

Well, if a certain asshole hadn't arranged for there to be no actual evidence (fat fucking chance), that wouldn't be an issue. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. But hey, at least you managed to at least attempt to scrape together a case, even if that case is "in the absence of any other evidence, no matter how bad or unreliable testimony is, it must be believed unquestioningly 100% of the time in every case." Congratu-fucking-lations. William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort would be SO proud.

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

Also, your assessment of me saying that testimony must be believed unquestionably 100% of the time, in every case is simply incorrect.  I said no such thing, and believe I even stated this here before.  This is only about giving opinions and our conclusions.  For the verdict, I went with what I thought was the majority opinion.  I'm not trying to make any argument, so I don't know why you seem upset, and the need to call me an asshole?

[Astonished]

Well, if a certain asshole hadn't arranged for there to be no actual evidence (fat fucking chance), that wouldn't be an issue. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. But hey, at least you managed to at least attempt to scrape together a case, even if that case is "in the absence of any other evidence, no matter how bad or unreliable testimony is, it must be believed unquestioningly 100% of the time in every case." Congratu-fucking-lations. William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort would be SO proud.

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

Also, your assessment of me saying that testimony must be believed unquestionably 100% of the time, in every case is simply incorrect.  I said no such thing, and believe I even stated this here before.  This is only about giving opinions and our conclusions.  For the verdict, I went with what I thought was the majority opinion.  I'm not trying to make any argument, so I don't know why you seem upset, and the need to call me an asshole?

If not an asshole, then a fucking liar because that 100% standard is the only way you can possibly justify believing any of what the bible has to say. Or are you just a hypocrite? You don't get to have it both ways, kid. Admit you're not playing by the rules or just stop.

[RoadRunner79]

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

Also, your assessment of me saying that testimony must be believed unquestionably 100% of the time, in every case is simply incorrect.  I said no such thing, and believe I even stated this here before.  This is only about giving opinions and our conclusions.  For the verdict, I went with what I thought was the majority opinion.  I'm not trying to make any argument, so I don't know why you seem upset, and the need to call me an asshole?

If not an asshole, then a fucking liar because that 100% standard is the only way you can possibly justify believing any of what the bible has to say. Or are you just a hypocrite? You don't get to have it both ways, kid. Admit you're not playing by the rules or just stop.

You know what, forget about it... I don't want to discuss anything with you anymore.  If after that many times of telling your that is not my position, and this topic is not about the bible,  you still want to mis-represent me.   Your not going to listen anyway.  And if your angry about a mischaracterization that only exists in your imagination OK... I'm done trying to help. 

And if you want to make up some other reason, other than what I said here.... I don't care.... If others can't see it.... they're no better and there is nothing I can say to change their minds either.

[Amarok]

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

Also, your assessment of me saying that testimony must be believed unquestionably 100% of the time, in every case is simply incorrect.  I said no such thing, and believe I even stated this here before.  This is only about giving opinions and our conclusions.  For the verdict, I went with what I thought was the majority opinion.  I'm not trying to make any argument, so I don't know why you seem upset, and the need to call me an asshole?

If not an asshole, then a fucking liar because that 100% standard is the only way you can possibly justify believing any of what the bible has to say. Or are you just a hypocrite? You don't get to have it both ways, kid. Admit you're not playing by the rules or just stop.

Pretty much

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the original scenario is wrong, if we're supposed to use it to make a case regarding eyewitness testimony for things Biblical.  The actual situation we're more faced with is:


A group of twelve people are willing to testify that I clocked Jim in the head with a chair.  Details of the individual testimonies vary a little  - some say I hit him with a three-legged stool, some say a desk chair.  Some say I hit him on the left side of the head, some say on the top of the head, etc. - but they all agree that I hit him with a chair and injured him pretty badly.

When the cops arrive, they find no chair and Jim appears to be uninjured.  In fact, there isn't ANY physical evidence that the altercation occurred.  But the 'witnesses' are so vociferous in their testimony that the police arrest me all the same, and I'm put on trial, convicted, and jailed on the say-so of twelve people.

This is precisely the case regarding the synoptic Gospels - we are asked to believe the most outlandish nonsense (cursed fig trees, demon-possessed pigs, feeding multitudes with a handful of fish and a few dinner rolls, and so on) based on nothing more than the hearsay handed down by unreliable 'witnesses' for more than 60 generations.  Not only is there no physical evidence for these stories, there is no good and sufficient reason to suppose them to be true.

Boru

[Cyberman]

Well, if a certain asshole hadn't arranged for there to be no actual evidence (fat fucking chance), that wouldn't be an issue. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. But hey, at least you managed to at least attempt to scrape together a case, even if that case is "in the absence of any other evidence, no matter how bad or unreliable testimony is, it must be believed unquestioningly 100% of the time in every case." Congratu-fucking-lations. William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort would be SO proud.

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

People get away with shit all the time through lack of evidence. I gave a perfect real-life example myself. At the same time, assessing objectively events that one was not present to witness based solely on witness testimony is, as we have seen, nigh on impossible to the extent of being dangerously unreliable.

[Mister Agenda]

So it's been two days now... the police have to release me, without any evidence.  The victim was in critical condition, but now he(and the hospital) have been cleansed of any physical evidence. Just in case.  There are even more witnesses, but they have no facts or information with which to indicate that I am guilty of wrong doing as true.  They are pissed... but it must be irrational, since they have no facts with which to reasonably believe that I did anything. 

See you tomorrow.

So you're taking back the physical evidence that there was a crime and all the evidence that supported the witnesses being accurate yet unrehearsed, independent, and trustworthy; and holding up under cross-examination?

Congratulations, you've boiled it down to actual naked testimony via establishing a scenario that can scarcely ever apply in the real world, and it isn't enough to convict.

What's your point? That you should be convicted anyway? The only people who can reasonably be said to know the truth of the matter to a degree that would justify conviction in court on a criminal charge are the witnesses and you. Presuming you actually are guilty, you should confess; or your accusers should pursue a civil case.

[RoadRunner79]

I think the original scenario is wrong, if we're supposed to use it to make a case regarding eyewitness testimony for things Biblical. 

Boru

Nope... was never the intention to make a connection for things Biblical.  Not even really about only a court case.  Just testimony as evidence.

---

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

People get away with shit all the time through lack of evidence. I gave a perfect real-life example myself. At the same time, assessing objectively events that one was not present to witness based solely on witness testimony is, as we have seen, nigh on impossible to the extent of being dangerously unreliable.

Yes, there are times where people get away with something because of lack of evidence (despite some peoples protest that this was an impossible aspect of the scenario). And it is interesting, that apart from the video which they failed to collect, you don't think the testimony of the one who called the police would have made any difference.  Even if thirty people had witnessed and attested on your behalf, that it could not be objectively assessed, and useless towards your case.

Keep in mind, that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on just one testimony which only briefly described the event.  

---

So it's been two days now... the police have to release me, without any evidence.  The victim was in critical condition, but now he(and the hospital) have been cleansed of any physical evidence. Just in case.  There are even more witnesses, but they have no facts or information with which to indicate that I am guilty of wrong doing as true.  They are pissed... but it must be irrational, since they have no facts with which to reasonably believe that I did anything. 

See you tomorrow.

So you're taking back the physical evidence that there was a crime and all the evidence that supported the witnesses being accurate yet unrehearsed, independent, and trustworthy; and holding up under cross-examination?

Congratulations, you've boiled it down to actual naked testimony via establishing a scenario that can scarcely ever apply in the real world, and it isn't enough to convict.

What's your point? That you should be convicted anyway? The only people who can reasonably be said to know the truth of the matter to a degree that would justify conviction in court on a criminal charge are the witnesses and you. Presuming you actually are guilty, you should confess;  or your accusers should pursue a civil case.

No... not taking anything away from the matter.   It was just a re-cap.
I think that it is intriguing , that you said the only people who know the truth  of the matter is the other witnesses and myself.  Can the witnesses not transfer this truth of the matter to others through testimony?  I would assume that if there was DNA evidence, I don't witness these facts first hand, but rely on the testimony (either documents or expert testimony) in court to relay this information. Why can't the same be done with testimony?    Are you saying that my testimony in confessing to the crime would be evidence, whereas anyone else who saw is somehow not evidence?  Couldn't someone just bring up the false convictions based on confessions?