On Fri, 27 May 2022 09:29:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:sbs19h19dts2hhe3pq8shn59p2u7rhuteg@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:27:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans
>>>>>>> >> who don't recignize the legitimacy of the current
>>>>>>> >> government to be surprisingly high. But that's not
>>>>>>> >> "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they have
>>>>>>> >> to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against
>>>>>>> >persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>>> >those assembled.
>>>>>>> >So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>>>> >here.
>>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>>>>>>mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had
>>>>>>a plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing
>>>>>>the election to the House, were they would get Trump elected.
>>>>>>It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably
>>>>>>have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>>of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>>it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there is
>>>>>some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but
>>>>>_that_ was not _it_.
>>>>
>>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>>> overthrow the government.
>>>>
>>>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>>insurrection.
>>
>> So far.
>
>It's been nearly a year an a half, and presoecutions have not been
>scarce.

Actual /prosecutions/ have been.

/Plea deals/ have not been.

And, every so often a plea deal falls through because the defendant
/will not affirm/ that he or she (these are Republicans, after all)
doesn't really think he or she actually committed any crime.

This is what I expected: lots of plea deals for those who simply
trespessed in a state of excitement. Actual trials for those who
picked up fire extinguishers and bashed people over the head with
them, or organized their group to prevent a government action.

It's just taken a while to separate the wheat from the chaff. But that
was predictable: you have a large number of cases in the smallest
Federal Court district in the country.

>>>And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>>
>> That remains to be seen.
>
>Just keep telling youself that.

I will.

And I suspect I will see it, sooner or later.

Various States are on the hunt as well, you know.

Donald Trump -- jailbird.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:59:10 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:01 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
> >> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
> >> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
> >> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
> >
> >Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...
>
> Again how many of them actually did that as opposed to those who plan
> on going to the polls in November hellbent on "throwing the bastards
> out"?
>
> You seem to be confused on the difference between those two groups.

How does that follow, when it is the people in the first group that he
is accusing of insurrection?

John Savard

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Well, according to one source
> <https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia> schizophrenia affects
> roughly 1.1% of the population, so I would want to at least see that
> threshold crossed before treating as more than lunatic-fringe
> activity.

If a million people had entered the Senate on January 6th, they would have
ended up being able to kill as many Senators as they wanted.

John Savard

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.

> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?

The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
force to use it.

The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
seen against BLM demonstrations.

John Savard

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:tm139hp0bj3332q73vkqfalqo8j67kf6fm@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:40:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> A key role of any judge is evaluating the quality of evidence
>>> which can range from "this evidence alone seals the case" to
>>> "OMG that's laughable that anybody would come into this court
>>> and present it with a straight face"
>>>
>>That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of fact."
>>Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the court
>>applied the law correctly, and within the Constitution, but they
>>do not (or at least should not) examine the evidence at all.
>
> You're right though my main knowledge of the judicial system is
> not the US system. As you correctly state the trial judge is the
> main judge of fact not the appellate judges.

No, the *judge* is not the trier of fact, the *jury* is.

> Their territory is
> how / whether / if the trial judge correctly applied the law.
>
> In fact I know of cases where appellate judges refused to speak
> to the facts of the case altogether other than to insist on the
> applicability of the cited precedent.
>
That is how it is supposed to be.

It's the distinction between a court of law and a court of justice.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:9cf39h5vou8rahc4fave7k0cnomeu5lnpo@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:k6629hdknuvj8fdkf2df7i65bvsdg8ir65@4ax.com:
>
>>>>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a
>>>>recent decision that new evidence can be ignored in some
>>>>situations.
>>>
>>> What recent decision would that be?
>>
>>I presume this:
>>
>>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf
>>
>>N(atuional)P(ropaganda)R(adio)'s take on it is here:
>>
>>https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-
>>challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
>>
>>https://tinyurl.com/2p9cfwc9
>
> On the contrary - I agree with the proposition that a defendent
> gets to decide what is the best defence possible but that right
> does not extend to making the judgement AFTER the decision has
> been rendered.
>
> If new evidence is advanced AFTER trial (for instance as was
> done by Stephen Truscott in a celebrated Canadian rape / murder
> case based on DNA evidence) then the argument was 'would failing
> to take this evidence into account bring the administration of
> justice into disrepute?" which is a pretty high bar.
>
> In Truscott's case his life sentence was put aside and the
> federal government chose not to retry. He was later given a
> multi-million dollar settlement - but no question it was a
> celebrated case in my childhood.
>
> And I very much agree that an application for appeal SHOULD be
> at the court's discretion and that a high bar should be required
> to justify a re-trial long after conviction. Certainly such an
> order shouldn't be given just on the defendant's say so.
>
This particular ruling appears (I haven't read it in any detail) to
prohibit using new evidence specifically to claim incompetent
counsel, and *only* for that purpose.

Introducting new evidence after a conviction has always been a high
bar, and it does get abused (there are certainly cases where new
evidence of *prosecutorial misconduct* was rejected by the
appellate courts), but the line between the rule of law and justice
can be tricky to find under the best of circumstances.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:4rh49htbsg6drrkmemfvi85kithrl14l3k@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 09:29:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:sbs19h19dts2hhe3pq8shn59p2u7rhuteg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:27:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J.
>>>>>>>> >Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of
>>>>>>>> >> Americans who don't recignize the legitimacy of the
>>>>>>>> >> current government to be surprisingly high. But that's
>>>>>>>> >> not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they
>>>>>>>> >> have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence
>>>>>>>> >against persons, as well as making death threats against
>>>>>>>> >some of those assembled.
>>>>>>>> >So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>>>>> >here.
>>>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were
>>>>>>>all mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions?
>>>>>>>They had a plan: prevent the certification of the election,
>>>>>>>throwing the election to the House, were they would get
>>>>>>>Trump elected. It was rational as it was unAmerican, and
>>>>>>>could conceivably have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>>>of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>>>it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there
>>>>>>is some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government,
>>>>>>but _that_ was not _it_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>>>> overthrow the government.
>>>>>
>>>>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>>>insurrection.
>>>
>>> So far.
>>
>>It's been nearly a year an a half, and presoecutions have not
>>been scarce.
>
> Actual /prosecutions/ have been.
>
> /Plea deals/ have not been.

Trials have been scarce. In grown up land, where word games are
laughed at as childish, one does not get a please bargain without
prosecuting someone first.

Dumbass.
>
> And, every so often a plea deal falls through because the
> defendant /will not affirm/ that he or she (these are
> Republicans, after all) doesn't really think he or she actually
> committed any crime.
>
> This is what I expected: lots of plea deals for those who simply
> trespessed in a state of excitement. Actual trials for those who
> picked up fire extinguishers and bashed people over the head
> with them, or organized their group to prevent a government
> action.
>
> It's just taken a while to separate the wheat from the chaff.
> But that was predictable: you have a large number of cases in
> the smallest Federal Court district in the country.

And still, not a siongle person has been charged with insurgency,
despite how badly the current administration wants to pretend
that's what happened.

Because, as has been acknowledged, the prosecution knows full well
they can't get a conviction on that charge.
>
>>>>And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>>>
>>> That remains to be seen.
>>
>>Just keep telling youself that.
>
> I will.

Of course you will. You're a well trained sheeple.
>
> And I suspect I will see it, sooner or later.
>
> Various States are on the hunt as well, you know.

And, like all cryptozoologists, coming up empty.
>
> Donald Trump -- jailbird.

More libel from someone who is clearly not right in the head.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
>news:tm139hp0bj3332q73vkqfalqo8j67kf6fm@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:40:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> A key role of any judge is evaluating the quality of evidence
>>>> which can range from "this evidence alone seals the case" to
>>>> "OMG that's laughable that anybody would come into this court
>>>> and present it with a straight face"
>>>>
>>>That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of fact."
>>>Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the court
>>>applied the law correctly, and within the Constitution, but they
>>>do not (or at least should not) examine the evidence at all.
>>
>> You're right though my main knowledge of the judicial system is
>> not the US system. As you correctly state the trial judge is the
>> main judge of fact not the appellate judges.
>
>No, the *judge* is not the trier of fact, the *jury* is.

To be completely accurate:

"A trier of fact (or finder of fact) is a person, or group
of people, who determines factual issues in a legal proceeding.
Most frequently, the jury is the trier of fact. If there is no
jury, the judge becomes the trier of fact as well as the trier of law"

Bench Trial: Judge is trier of fact and trier of law
Jury Trial: Jury is trier of fact and Judge is trier of law.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>
>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>
>The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
>Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
>force to use it.

SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.

>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>
>John Savard

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Well, according to one source
>> <https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia> schizophrenia affects
>> roughly 1.1% of the population, so I would want to at least see that
>> threshold crossed before treating as more than lunatic-fringe
>> activity.
>
>If a million people had entered the Senate on January 6th, they would have
>ended up being able to kill as many Senators as they wanted.

Your point being?

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:06:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> Well, according to one source
> >> <https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia> schizophrenia affects
> >> roughly 1.1% of the population, so I would want to at least see that
> >> threshold crossed before treating as more than lunatic-fringe
> >> activity.
> >
> >If a million people had entered the Senate on January 6th, they would have
> >ended up being able to kill as many Senators as they wanted.

> Your point being?

That an insurgency could be effective even if it did not cross your threshold
for going outside the lunatic fringe. I thought that was obvious in the given
context.

John Savard

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:37:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>>>That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of fact."
>>>>Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the court
>>>>applied the law correctly, and within the Constitution, but they
>>>>do not (or at least should not) examine the evidence at all.
>>>
>>> You're right though my main knowledge of the judicial system is
>>> not the US system. As you correctly state the trial judge is the
>>> main judge of fact not the appellate judges.
>>
>>No, the *judge* is not the trier of fact, the *jury* is.
>
>To be completely accurate:
>
> "A trier of fact (or finder of fact) is a person, or group
> of people, who determines factual issues in a legal proceeding.
> Most frequently, the jury is the trier of fact. If there is no
> jury, the judge becomes the trier of fact as well as the trier of law"
>
>Bench Trial: Judge is trier of fact and trier of law
>Jury Trial: Jury is trier of fact and Judge is trier of law.

I'm not familiar with the terminology of 'bench trial' vs 'jury trial'
but no question what you call 'bench trial' would be familiar to me as
a 'magistrate's court' and would be the norm for a lesser judge only
trial which tends to be the norm on what I would expect you to call
misdemeanors and minor felonies.

Around here most major 'indictable offences' (aka felonies) would
indeed be what you call a 'jury trial' and about 3 years ago I got a
jury summons for a trial that was supposed to be about a restauranteur
(who as I understand it spoke very little English) +who was accused of
behaving extremely naughty towards his waitresses.

I was excused on a defence peremptory challenge and read about the
case about 2 months later but don't recall the outcome.

The defence said "challenge!", the judge thanked me and I verified
with the court sheriff that I was free to go before leaving.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:49:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And I very much agree that an application for appeal SHOULD be
>> at the court's discretion and that a high bar should be required
>> to justify a re-trial long after conviction. Certainly such an
>> order shouldn't be given just on the defendant's say so.
>>
>This particular ruling appears (I haven't read it in any detail) to
>prohibit using new evidence specifically to claim incompetent
>counsel, and *only* for that purpose.
>
>Introducting new evidence after a conviction has always been a high
>bar, and it does get abused (there are certainly cases where new
>evidence of *prosecutorial misconduct* was rejected by the
>appellate courts), but the line between the rule of law and justice
>can be tricky to find under the best of circumstances.

Yup - I remember one such case where a new trial WAS ordered after the
end of the case in response to the revelation that the assistant
prosecutor had a relationship with one of the testifying police
officers which had not been disclosed to the court.

Which would have been fine had it been disclosed and the asst
prosecutor taken no part in the questioning but it was admitted that
the asst prosecutor HAD taken part in the preparation of the chief
prosecutor....

On Sat, 28 May 2022 09:00:45 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 May 2022 10:59:04 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:01 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>
>>>Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...
>>
>>Again how many of them actually did that as opposed to those who plan
>>on going to the polls in November hellbent on "throwing the bastards
>>out"?
>
>Seems to me that they had gone to the polls and voted to keep their
>guy in and ... lost.
>
>And now were desperately trying to evade reality.
>
>Leading to the question:
>Should Donald Trump be listed as a psychelic drug? He is clearly
>addictive.
>
>>You seem to be confused on the difference between those two groups.
>
>One was and is upset at losing. Poor babies!
>
>The other is planning to do what they always do -- vote Republican.
>
>Unless, of course, they decide they value their children's lives more
>than their firearms.
>
>Or Roe v Wade gets overturned, and the females among them, at least,
>find themselves living in a dystopia.

You're completely missing my point - I was making the point that those
who vote for the losing candidate USUALLY get annoyed and 3 1/2 years
later resolve to "get the b***** out!" and that's the end of it though
some engage in local campaigning amongst their friends to see things
their way and encourage them to get out to vote.

For most people that's the limit of it - Jan 6 type events are
extremely rare both in the US and in most western democratic states.

Which is as it SHOULD be.

I was not engaging in a phillippic about 1/6/2021 nor particularly
seeking such a chat. What happened there shouldn't have happened and
had their anger encouraged them to commit to taking behalf in the 2022
elections on behalf of candidates their guy approved of we wouldn't be
having this conversation since THAT response would be entirely as it
should be with nothing at all sketchy about it.

I do think referring to 1/6/2021 as an insurrection is an exaggeration
as they certainly did not have ancillery demonstrations in other
locations and the Hill police did well to make the arrests they did.
That group was an extremely small percentage of the 70 million
Americans who voted for Trump in 2020 as well all know.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:dv569h9ma7cs9u864gpn3499j62pv1qt74@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:37:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
> Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>>>>That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of
>>>>>fact." Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the
>>>>>court applied the law correctly, and within the Constitution,
>>>>>but they do not (or at least should not) examine the evidence
>>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>> You're right though my main knowledge of the judicial system
>>>> is not the US system. As you correctly state the trial judge
>>>> is the main judge of fact not the appellate judges.
>>>
>>>No, the *judge* is not the trier of fact, the *jury* is.
>>
>>To be completely accurate:
>>
>> "A trier of fact (or finder of fact) is a person, or group
>> of people, who determines factual issues in a legal
>> proceeding. Most frequently, the jury is the trier of fact.
>> If there is no jury, the judge becomes the trier of fact as
>> well as the trier of law"
>>
>>Bench Trial: Judge is trier of fact and trier of law
>>Jury Trial: Jury is trier of fact and Judge is trier of law.
>
> I'm not familiar with the terminology of 'bench trial' vs 'jury
> trial' but no question what you call 'bench trial' would be
> familiar to me as a 'magistrate's court' and would be the norm
> for a lesser judge only trial which tends to be the norm on what
> I would expect you to call misdemeanors and minor felonies.
>
> Around here most major 'indictable offences' (aka felonies)
> would indeed be what you call a 'jury trial' and about 3 years
> ago I got a jury summons for a trial that was supposed to be
> about a restauranteur (who as I understand it spoke very little
> English) +who was accused of behaving extremely naughty towards
> his waitresses.
>
You have the practical difference right. In the US, whether it is a
bench trial o a jury trial is up to the defendent in a criminal
case, and both litigants (they have to agree) in a civil case. The
defendant in the most trivial misdemanor is guaranteed a jury trial
by the Constitution, the most serious capital murder case can be a
bench trial if the defendent so chooses.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:06:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, according to one source
>> >> <https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia> schizophrenia affects
>> >> roughly 1.1% of the population, so I would want to at least see that
>> >> threshold crossed before treating as more than lunatic-fringe
>> >> activity.
>> >
>> >If a million people had entered the Senate on January 6th, they would have
>> >ended up being able to kill as many Senators as they wanted.
>
>> Your point being?
>
>That an insurgency could be effective even if it did not cross your threshold
>for going outside the lunatic fringe. I thought that was obvious in the given
>context.

One man with a bomb could have killed the entire congress. Would that
mean that he was an "insurgency"? And if so, from where did he surge
in? Please stick to one form of misconduct instead of jumping from
"insurrection" to "insurgency".

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:05:01 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>>
>>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>>
>>The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
>>Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
>>force to use it.
>
>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.

The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.

>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>seen against BLM demonstrations.

Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
instead of whatever they feel like doing.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:59:44 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:05:01 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>>>
>>>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>>>
>>>The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
>>>Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
>>>force to use it.
>>
>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.
>
>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.

No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
reclaim them from criminals.

>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>
>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>instead of whatever they feel like doing.

Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
the police and military against them.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:29:36 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
> the police and military against them.

So you're admitting that the United States is a banana republic now,
are you?

Unlike you, the Democrats have faith in America. They believe that it is
still the strong democracy that it has always been, and that both its
army and police will uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution rather
than their own personal interests. Therefore, they will advocate and enact
policies based on whether they are good for America and the American
people, without fear or favor.

This is not to say that perhaps the Democratic Party _should_ be considering
what you're referring to, but certainly if they _are_, they wouldn't talk about it
in *public*. No sense normalizing something that is _profoundly_ pathological.

John Savard

On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:29:36 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>> the police and military against them.
>
>So you're admitting that the United States is a banana republic now,
>are you?

If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.

>Unlike you, the Democrats have faith in America.

I have plenty of faith in America. I just don't have any faith in
Democrats.

>They believe that it is
>still the strong democracy that it has always been, and that both its
>army and police will uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution rather
>than their own personal interests.

And when the Democrats ignore the constitution, then what?

>Therefore, they will advocate and enact
>policies based on whether they are good for America and the American
>people, without fear or favor.

No, they will advocate and enact policies that will help them stay in
office, just like every other politician.

>This is not to say that perhaps the Democratic Party _should_ be considering
>what you're referring to, but certainly if they _are_, they wouldn't talk about it
>in *public*. No sense normalizing something that is _profoundly_ pathological.

So if the police and military being against them is a problem, they
should cover it up? How forthright and honest of them.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:29:32 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.

I would think that would be fairly obvious based on the acronym which
for the benefit of anyone who's forgotten is "Special Weapons Assault
Team".

I presume nobody needs to review the meanings of 'assault' vs
'defending'?

>>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.
>
>No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
>building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
>reclaim them from criminals.
>
>>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>>
>>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>>instead of whatever they feel like doing.
>
>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>the police and military against them.

What would you suggest as an alternative? Certainly there have been
cases where police have gone in shooting in situations where either
they hadn't verified overwhelming firepower was needed or where they
went in all guns blazing - at the wrong house.

Mercifully these cases (especially the latter kind) are rare but they
DO happen. I'm generally supportive of police but when you hear of
things like the Breonna Taylor case one has to wonder if police were
thinking at all before mounting their assault that day. A key part of
police training in most jurisdictions is not putting bystanders at
risk unnecessarily. (Which in plain English means when the bad guy is
armed and has either fired or is about to) Any officer who believes in
shooting first and asking questions later shouldn't wear the badge -
and my dad was an ex-cop.

And I have zero sympathy for the 4 officers in the Robert Dziezkanski
case where they fatally tasered the guy (who they claimed was
attacking them with what turned out to be a stapler - and then tasered
him 6 times in 30 seconds causing heart failure) and then made
perjured statements to their superior officers.

All 4 were drummed out of the police but all 4 should have gone to
jail. And they would have gotten away with it if a bystander hadn't
had his cell phone camera in action that day. And in my book there
AREN'T any 'mitigating circumstances' if an officer violates his or
her oath. That's a no brainer if officers are expected to have any
sense of duty and honor we're led to believe they have.

Again I'm generally fairly pro-police but when they go outside their
authority and lie about it or otherwise cover up they deserve to have
the book thrown for they DO have a duty to the public and when they
violate that they don't deserve a handslap.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
> the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
> I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.

No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.

What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
of the nation.

John Savard

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >This is not to say that perhaps the Democratic Party _should_ be considering
> >what you're referring to, but certainly if they _are_, they wouldn't talk about it
> >in *public*. No sense normalizing something that is _profoundly_ pathological.

> So if the police and military being against them is a problem, they
> should cover it up? How forthright and honest of them.

They should fix it.

The generals who might lead the troops under them into any
unseemly actions should be discharged from their duties...

at the same time...

when out of reach of a telephone or other means of issuing
invalid orders that could lead to confusion.

So that has to come as a surprise, not after a lot of public
discussion. How do you think one is to safely conduct a
purge of the military?

John Savard

On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
>> the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
>> I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
>
>No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>
>What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
>not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
>or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
>military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
>about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
>of the nation.

So if the military had succeeded in killing Hitler and overthrowing
the Nazis that would make Germany a banana republic?

On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:31:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >This is not to say that perhaps the Democratic Party _should_ be considering
>> >what you're referring to, but certainly if they _are_, they wouldn't talk about it
>> >in *public*. No sense normalizing something that is _profoundly_ pathological.
>
>> So if the police and military being against them is a problem, they
>> should cover it up? How forthright and honest of them.
>
>They should fix it.

How do you propose to "fix it"?

>The generals who might lead the troops under them into any
>unseemly actions should be discharged from their duties...

And how is the determination made that a particular general is a
member of that group?

>at the same time...

And if they have chosen correctly the revolution begins.

>when out of reach of a telephone or other means of issuing
>invalid orders that could lead to confusion.

Good luck with that in the modern world. Especially for a senior
military officer.

>So that has to come as a surprise, not after a lot of public
>discussion. How do you think one is to safely conduct a
>purge of the military?

So you're proposing purges. And you wonder why people want to arm
themselves against the government.