Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

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 spmeone, 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 somebody. 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, I don't wish anyone 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

Moderator Notice
Edited by vorlon13 to comply with Terms of Service

[Astonished]

Wow, I did not think you could be any more goddamn fucking retarded than I already believed, but fuck, man, you managed to go above and beyond.

Of course their testimony isn't worth shit without any real evidence. They could all have a motive to frame you, and let's face it, you're such an asshole that's not even remotely a stretch to believe. There could be a gas leak and they all hallucinated. A blinding flash in the window could have made them unable clearly see what happened and they may have mis-identified who hit who based on who was standing where at whatever time. Some would succumb to groupthink and support what someone else who appears persuasive, or someone they know and would side with just because of that. Some of them could be mentally ill and not really have a firm grasp on reality or be able to effectively communicate even if they did. Some of them might just be so afraid of being suspect themselves, they would probably shift the blame to anyone they could; you should know, fear is a big motivator for someone to behave irrationally and believe ridiculous things. They could all have not seen it, backs turned, or just spacing out when it happens, and just believe Tiz when he blamed you since it's unlikely, perhaps even impossible, for someone to manage to effectively smash a chair over their own head; the forearm simply does not have the requisite strength to do so at that angle.

For fuck's sake, seriously, I'm not even done with all the reasons why testimony is absolutely the worst, most insufficient means of verifying ANYTHING, and your dipshit-ass hypothetical actually has no evidence besides that whatsoever? No fingerprints on the parts of the chair one would need to grasp to hit someone over the head rather than simply sit and push it forward? No blood splatter on yourself or splinters on your clothing or hands? No change in heart rate or blood pressure in you, especially if given a polygraph test (and everyone else, to be fair)? Get fucking real, asshat. This is the most inane thread you could have posted, what the fuck kind of response did you expect, that you might actually NOT be wrong? Fuck off.

[Amarok]

Considering your recent failed attempt to make a legal case from your book of mythology. Your the last person who should be making a thread like this .

[Ravenshire]

For fuck's sake RR. You go to extreme lengths to get people to agree with you that testimonial evidence is just as good as any other. It's not and never will be. The human mind simply isn't reliable enough.

[Astonished]

For fuck's sake RR. You go to extreme lengths to get people to agree with you that testimonial evidence is just as good as any other. It's not and never will be. The human mind simply isn't reliable enough.

Case in point: Beep-Beep himself.

Look, ToadBuggerer, you're flat wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's factually objectively the least reliable form of evidence and should, in the absence of any other empirical evidence, be dismissed. Fortunately there's very infrequently no actual evidence to accompany in the situations where it's used (even if those situations only have circumstantial evidence). It just so happens that your book o' bullshit is one of those rare occasions, where not even something as minor as circumstantial evidence can be found to support it. So can you guess why that ancient tabloid trash is dismissed so readily, and justifiably so? Come on, you can make it. It's just a matter of admitting you're wrong. Yes, it's painful, but your life will vastly improve once you're willing to make that leap. That, we can prove. People who abandon faith have gained much, just look at someone like Seth Andrews or Dan Barker.

[Amarok]

Now watch after someone debunks his starting senerio he will keep making up more or will add new details

[Minimalist]

In your case I would approve application of the death penalty.

[Ravenshire]

Now watch after someone debunks his starting senerio he will keep making up more or will add new details

Having been on the site longer than RR, I've seen all his machinations.

[Astonished]

Now watch after someone debunks his starting senerio he will keep making up more or will add new details

It's already as self-refuting as his theology.

[Amarok]

Now watch after someone debunks his starting senerio he will keep making up more or will add new details

It's already as self-refuting as his theology.

True and no were near as fun to laugh at