Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Hall" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules. Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done. Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because he's being accused? Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box? listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000 watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict before you know that that person is a murderer? I heard someone on 2 meteres last night, swearing, threating people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules? If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet.. No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before that they are only a suspect. Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me yet". A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run around accusing people of being criminals. Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad. Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws. Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty Isn't that enough? If you conscience bothers you, yes. , everything else has to be done through a court of law. You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are. Playing word games doesn't hide that fact. Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave, that's why they are called suspects, not criminals. Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal. Dave Landshark -- My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects. |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules. Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done. Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because he's being accused? What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him? Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box? listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000 watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict before you know that that person is a murderer? I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules? Absolutely! If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet.. No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been caught or convicted of it yet. You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. Speeding is not considered a criminal offense. Operating a radio transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as jay-walking, speeding and simple littering. Those summary offenses do not carry criminal penalties. Violation of certain FCC rules, on the other hand, does. Some people used to think the same thing about theft of cable TV service. Until the law changed and got some teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices face serious jail time. You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before that they are only a suspect. Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me yet". A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run around accusing people of being criminals. Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But you know as well as I do that the system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various reasons. Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a criminal. Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make up my mind. If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it). If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity. Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad. Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws. Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty Isn't that enough? If you conscience bothers you, yes. If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you start bordering on sociopathic tendencies. , everything else has to be done through a court of law. You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are. Playing word games doesn't hide that fact. Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave, that's why they are called suspects, not criminals. Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime, you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did. Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal. No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you could factually make that statement. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules. Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done. Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because he's being accused? I heard Jackson will literally cry if you don't let your pre-pubescent son sleep in the same bed with him. ****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him. |
#65
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an internet forum that he did indeed molest children? What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it? |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules. Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done. Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because he's being accused? What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him? It make's him not guilty in a criminal court of law, sucks but that the law. Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box? listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000 watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict before you know that that person is a murderer? Yup, right now he's only a killer, but after the court rules he's guilty, then he's a murderer. I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules? Absolutely! If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet.. No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been caught or convicted of it yet. ???, so you are saying that they are a suspect, good. Cause they can't be a criminal unless they have been convicted of doing that criminal act. You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. Speeding is not considered a criminal offense. Sure it is, going 100 mph is construed as a misdemeanor, thus punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and/or fine. Operating a radio transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as jay-walking, speeding and simple littering. You consider 1 year in jail and $1000.00 fine as trivial? Those summary offenses do not carry criminal penalties. Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties Violation of certain FCC rules, on the other hand, does. Some people used to think the same thing about theft of cable TV service. Until the law changed and got some teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices face serious jail time. You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before that they are only a suspect. Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me yet". Might be, but is correct. A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run around accusing people of being criminals. Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Correct and you still go on defending calling people criminals that haven't had their day in court? Doesn't make sense. But you know as well as I do that the system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various reasons. Correct, and they can then be sued in civil court, but they still won't be construed as a criminal. Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a criminal Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make up my mind. He might be one of those people that confess about everything, it makes them fell important. That still doesn't make them a criminal. If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it). If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity. To which I am just a suspect, not a criminal. Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad. Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws. Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty Isn't that enough? If you conscience bothers you, yes. If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you start bordering on sociopathic tendencies. Oh please Dave, that's crazy talk, sociopath tendencies. , everything else has to be done through a court of law. You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are. Playing word games doesn't hide that fact. Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave, that's why they are called suspects, not criminals. Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime, you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did. Why is it that when a records check is done on a person, they an arrest record & criminal record? why not just one? Because it is just that, one is different from the other. Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal. No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you could factually make that statement. Gheez Dave, exactly what I've been saying with the exception of the record of conviction. Dave Landshark -- My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects. |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steveo" wrote in message ****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him. Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps. Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
#69
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 13 Apr 2005 21:56:43 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an internet forum that he did indeed molest children? What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it? As a parent, I am particularly offended by it. Anyone who is found to have been deliberately negligent to his children deserves far more than my scorn though. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#70
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:29 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because he's being accused? What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him? It make's him not guilty in a criminal court of law, sucks but that the law. In this case, I am not concerned with the determination of the law, but with the truth. A criminal who beats the rap, is still a criminal in my eyes. Note that I'm not talking about a truly innocent person here, but one that I know is guilty and who beat the rap due to a technicality or some other mitigating circumstance. A criminal might fool the flawed legal system, but he still has to face his maker one day. Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box? listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000 watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict before you know that that person is a murderer? Yup, right now he's only a killer, but after the court rules he's guilty, then he's a murderer. What? Are you really going to play these word games? I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules? Absolutely! If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet.. No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been caught or convicted of it yet. ???, so you are saying that they are a suspect, good. Cause they can't be a criminal unless they have been convicted of doing that criminal act. Again, you are wrapping yourself in the semantics of the law and lulling yourself into a false sense of security. If you do the crime, but don't get caught, you are still technically a criminal, whether or not that "badge" can be legally applied to you. You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. Speeding is not considered a criminal offense. Sure it is, going 100 mph is construed as a misdemeanor, thus punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and/or fine. I'm not sure that's the law in every state. Even if it is though, your earlier ratio of 4 out of 10 people no longer applies since most speeders don't exceed the speed limit by more than 20 MPH Operating a radio transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as jay-walking, speeding and simple littering. You consider 1 year in jail and $1000.00 fine as trivial? I've never known anyone who went to jail for simple speeding, jay-walking or littering. Now if the speeding charge was in conjunction with something else like a DUI or a vehicular homicide, well, that's a different story. Those summary offenses do not carry criminal penalties. Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties Not in my state. Littering carries a $300 max fine, and no jail time. Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me yet". Might be, but is correct. A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run around accusing people of being criminals. Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Correct and you still go on defending calling people criminals that haven't had their day in court? Doesn't make sense. If you are willingly engaging in a criminal activity, then you are technically a criminal regardless whether you've been caught yet. Again, you are arguing semantics. A conviction only makes it official in the eyes of the law. Conversely, not being caught does not diminish the severity of the criminal activity you have chosen to undertake. But you know as well as I do that the system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various reasons. Correct, and they can then be sued in civil court, but they still won't be construed as a criminal. I don't want to get side tracked by the seeming conflict in the evidentiary methods to determine civil liability versus criminal liability. If one is cleared of a criminal charge, then they should not be liable civilly either. But we both know that this is not the case. In the O.J Simpson case, he was criminally found not guilty, but in a civil court he was found to be responsible for the "wrongful death" of Ron Goldman and Nicole. So here we have a guy who's not a criminal, but still responsible for the death of 2 people. Logically that just doesn't make sense. Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a criminal Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make up my mind. He might be one of those people that confess about everything, it makes them fell important. That still doesn't make them a criminal. It does if he was telling the truth. If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it). If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity. To which I am just a suspect, not a criminal. You would be clearly committing a criminal act. Again, I don't need a jury verdict to convince me. If you conscience bothers you, yes. If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you start bordering on sociopathic tendencies. Oh please Dave, that's crazy talk, sociopath tendencies. What's crazy about it? Sociopaths exhibit a clear lack of conscience. That is well documented. But like most things in life, human psychology is not a black and white issue. Most of us have varying degrees of personality traits which fall on a scale somewhere. We are considered "normal" if those traits fall into line with established norms. A sociopath has little remorse, or guilt for the things that they do. Other people are troubled by the simplest transgression that they may inadvertently do. Someone who falls closer to the sociopath on the conscience scale (Sociopathic tendencies) would be less troubled by transgressions against society. Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime, you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did. Why is it that when a records check is done on a person, they an arrest record & criminal record? why not just one? Because it is just that, one is different from the other. Exactly. Any time a police officer is called to your house, an incident report is filed. Every time a person is arrested a report is filed. That is just SOP. I think you are still missing the point a bit. I'm not talking about accusing an innocent person of a crime. I'm talking about people who are clearly and willingly engaging in criminal activity, who try to justify their criminal behavior by claiming that they're not really criminals because they've managed to evade prosecution. As if that makes it ok. But the act is the same whether they're caught or not. Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal. No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you could factually make that statement. Gheez Dave, exactly what I've been saying with the exception of the record of conviction. But the difference is that I'm not here bragging about all the people I jam on a nightly basis on ham radio. I'm not involved in criminal activities. The people I make reference to as "federal criminals" are those who admit to running in violation of FCC rules. I have never accused anyone who hasn't claimed the same. Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to catch them yet. Dave |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|