"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.