🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jul.20.11.30.48.1992.1545@gandalf.rutgers.edu> parilis@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Gary Parilis) writes:
=In article <1992Jul18.204401.15697@mccc.edu> pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes:
=
=> In article <Jul.15.12.56.53.1992.19797@gandalf.rutgers.edu> parilis@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Gary Parilis) writes:
=
=> =In article <1992Jun24.012331.12699@devildog.att.com> mdgale@acpy01.att.com (Michael Gale (CXNIXPT1)) writes:
=
=> => Proof of guilt:  NJ has a legal concept that basically comes down to
=> => your word is not good enough.
=> =>  example: In Holmdel Court: a person tried to make it a case of his 
=> => 	word against the cops.  The judge said: "I've known this officer
=> => 	for some time and have found his word to be good.  In addition
=> => 	what does he have to gain by lying.  He has to come into court
=> => 	outside his normal tour.  You on the other hand, would avoid
=> => 	several fines and penalties.  I'm afraid, young man, you're
=> => 	going to have to do better than that."
=
=> =Hmmm...
=
=> =Guilty till proven innocent.
=
=> That's not what he said. He said that the judge believes the cop and
=> doesn't believe you.
=
=Right.  So you don't need to be PROVEN guilty.  Unless you can PROVE
=that the cop is wrong or lying, you'll be considered guilty.
=
=I guess where Pete and I differ is in our definitions of PROOF.
=
=In the above case, in the case of a stalemate, the accuser wins... :-(
=Sounds to me like what our forefathers werew trying to protect us from.

I agree. An accuser and a witness are two different things. But "proof"
is something else. For example, how does one "prove" that X killed Y? A
believable eyewitness's statement may be taken as proof. A traffic
offence doesn't rate a jury trial, so a "believable" cop (is that an
oxymoron?) is proof as far as the judge is concerned.
=
=> Never drive around without a handful of reliable witnesses. ;-)
=
=Right.  And don't drive around with long hair or Grateful Dead
=stickers on your car either.  :-(

I can't comment on that, having neither. ;-)