Nexis wrote:

>> In your *opinion*. Opinion based not on fact is not *rational* opinion.
> Yes,
>> the standard is "reasonable doubt" but reasonable requires *rational*
>> opinion, opinion based on *fact* not intuition.
>
> No, what is irrational is to try to contrive improbable situations and
> then say that is cause for reasonable doubt, when in fact it is just what
> I called it: improbable.

What it all boils down to is this: neither you nor I know the facts of the
case except for the most sensational bits the news media has broadcast
repeatedly. He might be (probably is) guilty. Or, he might not be guilty of
murder. We *don't* know. I have said, from the beginning in this thread,
that he needs to be tried in a court of law and his guilt definitely proven
before he's sentenced. It was in response to the people who were saying
that he should be tortured in prison and then the victim's parents should
"shove a shotgun up his ass". My statements were purely in response to very
barbaric, irrational sentiments.

>> > It is possible that Mr. Smith
>> > could have had an accomplice; but no evidence has come to light that
>> > suggests that was the case.
>>
>> You're right. I'm not saying he *did* have an accomplice. I'm saying that
> a
>> rush to judgement will preclude us from finding out *definitively* if he
>> acted alone or worked with someone else. My position has never been to
>> defend him, but has solely been to defend the system where he gets a fair
>> an impartial trial *before* he's convicted, sentenced and punished.
>> Anything less is irrational and lynch mob mentality.
>
> Being able to make a conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt is not
> irrational or a lynch mob mentality.

And "beyond a reasonable doubt" also assumes that you have *all* of the
facts to consider before making your judgement. Jumping the gun and killing
him because he *seems to be* the guy is neither reasonable nor rational.

<sni>

>> > It's not like guys who
>> > assault kids are known for being all that brave or self-sacrificing,
>> > and he's looking at the death penalty.
>>
>> That's irrational. Look at OJ. All of the evidence points to him, yet he
>> still claims he's innocent. To claim that someone who did a crime would
>> necessarily have to admit to it once confronted with overwhelming
>> evidence is not in line with reality, where criminals *after* conviction
>> by overwhelming evidence still plead their own innocence.
>
> Interesting viewpoint, but not really a response to the statement above
> it. You can blame someone else without implicating yourself. Ask half the
> people in jail.

In order to blame someone else you have to have some knowledge *about* the
crime in order to know who's involved. How can he point a finger to someone
else without implicating himself as, at the minimum, an accessory after the
fact?

>> > He's a repeat offender
>>
>> Not of this type of crime. He was acquitted previously.
>
> He is a repeat offender...he was arrested and charged.

And not convicted. Being arrested for something and being charged but
acquitted is not the same as being a repeat offender. Again, you're showing
an irrational prejudice in assuming that you know more about his guilt in
that previous case than the jury who were *there*, who *had* the details
and came to a different conclusion. How can you assume that you know better
his guilt than the people who were involved in the case? Your statement is
irrational; i.e., it has no rational foundation.

> It is on his
> record. The outcome of the trial doesn't negate the fact that the trial
> happened.

So? Plenty of people can be tried who aren't guilty (and I'm *not* saying
he's not guilty of the previous crime; I'm saying that he was not convicted
and, as such, is *not* a "repeat offender"; to be a repeat offender you
have to have a prior *conviction*, not just a prior indictment). That he
was accused of a crime does not make him automatically guilty; that kind of
thinking is pure, unadulterated lynchmob mentality.

>> > who
>> > knows how the system works, who knows it's possible to make a deal
>> > with the DA for a better outcome, if you have something to trade. It's
>> > "reasonable" (that problematic word again) to assume that he'd try to
>> > make a deal,
>>
>> Not really. If there's no evidence to directly link him to the crime,
> could
>> very well be hedging his bets that he can claim innocence and get away
> with
>> it if he did it. To assume he'd point fingers to save himself is to
>> assume he's already given up on trying to get away with the crime in the
>> first place.
>
> Again, it is quite easy to implicate someone else and claim your own
> innocence.

I didn't say it was hard. But, to do so you have to now involve *yourself*
in the crime itself in some way. Not the best thing to do when you're being
accused of the crime.

> Trying to make a deal is part of the game that you so admirably
> refer to as our legal system. It's all a game to the vast majority of the
> people playing. I'll trade you a lighter sentence here for dropping that
> felony to a misdemeanor. I've seen in many times. With all of the overload
> on the system, people become nothing but numbers and folders, and guilt or
> innocence is far too often an afterthought. It's all about the deals. The
> deals keep the courts from being overwhelmed. And cons know all too well,
> as the previous poster stated, about the fine art of making a deal.

Yeah, that's all well and good. That doesn't mean that *every* person
accused of a crime will automatically start trying to negotiate lighter
sentences. Look at the similar case of that guy in California who kidnapped
and killed Danielle Van Damm(sp?). The evidence was overwhelming against
him, yet he continued to plead his innocence, even today. Your claim that
"everybody knows how to do it" doesn't mean that everybody *does* do it,
nor does it mean that someone who *doesn't* do it is automatically guilty
of a crime. Again, that's not a line of argumentation based on anything
rational. It's illogical.

>> > I have been following this case pretty closely since before Smith was
>> > arrested. Numerous people, including several of his own family
>> > members, have identified the person on the video as Smith; NASA has
>> > enhanced the photos to make identification clearer. The car seen in
>> > the video was loaned to him by a friend who has come forward and is
>> > identifiable by dings and scrapes on the vehicle as being the same car
>> > he borrowed.
>>
>> All damning, no doubt. Let it go to trial and convict him properly. I'm
> all
>> for that. If he did it, he's going to go down for it by trial.
>
> I don't remember anyone saying there shouldn't be a trial?

Those were the people I originally replied to, the ones who wanted him
passed around from inmate to inmate to be tortured, and then have a shotgun
shoved up his ass by the parents of the victim.

> What I recall
> was more about the erm...sentencing, shall we say?

Their whole point was to bypass the trial because he "obviously did it". The
point I've taken to task is this "obviously" claim. Of all the claims I've
heard, none of them are based on any *actual* evidence but are all
assumptions made based on that one video and a past accusation. Accusations
are not convictions, and accusing someone doesn't mean they're guilty.

>> > He has a history of attempted kidnapping/assault similar
>> > to this one.
>>
>> That's not an indicator in *this* case of anything more than he's
>> potentially capable of the act. He never commited a murder before (to our
>> knowledge) so it's not rational to conclude he did it this time based on
>> that previous indictment.
>
> Now we're back to Oh he may have kidnapped her, but he didn't kill her,
> yet he told someone where to find her body?

No, actually we're solely at a point where the claim is "of course he did
it, he's done it before" which is absolutely a logical fallacy and an
irrational argument.

> The improbability of that one
> has got to be clear, even to you.

The improbability of *what*?

>> > The
>> > evening of the kidnapping, state troopers saw him coming from the
>> > bushes where the body was later found and stopped to talk to him.
>> > (They quite rightly did not arrest him because the child was still
>> > listed as a runaway and he wasn't under suspicion at that time; he
>> > told them he had just pulled over to take a leak.) Based on all that,
>> > I can honestly say that there is no "reasonable" doubt in my mind that
>> > he is the guilty party.
>>
>> That leaves little room for reasonable doubt, yes. There's plenty of
>> circumstantial evidence to point fingers to him as the likely
>> perpetrator. I never said there wasn't. I've been saying that he deserves
>> a trial that proves his guilt before he's punished for the crime. All
>> those who want to skip the trial because "it's obvious he did it" need to
>> step back and get some perspective is all I'm saying.
>
> Again, I don't recall anyone saying the trial should be skipped. Be done
> quickly, yes, but not skipped. And it should be done quickly.

But not too quickly, otherwise evidence will be overlooked in haste.

> All these
> delays of years and years do nothing to help our society, the system, the
> victims, or anyone if you ask me. But then again, that all goes back to
> the game. It's like the football player who runs out of bounds with 3
> seconds left on the clock.
>>
>> > If you disagree, well, that's up to you; but
>> > that kind of thinking is part of the reason this bozo was free on the
>> > streets and a kid is dead.
>>
>> It's also this kind of thinking that has helped to ensure that somebody
> who
>> didn't do a crime didn't end up dead because everybody thought he was
>> guilty and deserved to be punished. I would rather err on the side of
>> letting a guilty man go free than on the side of killing an innocent man
>> "just in case".
>
> Ahh if only that was the case. I suggest you check out the Innocence
> Project, which is all about wrongfully convicted people. People who had
> your lengthy and fair trial. It doesn't guarantee anything...

It's a guarantee only that someone isn't quickly railroaded through a trial
and then executed for a crime they didn't commit. That's the guarantee that
can be safely kept.

> and that's
> the sad fact of it. And I would never prefer to let a child killer go
> free. Ever.

The problem is, if you don't know *for sure* based on *evidence* then you
can't rightly imprison or execute someone merely based on "I just know".
You might be *wrong* and then what?

> If he is innocent the sysytem you exhalt

Careful. You're making a *huge* assumption with your repeated insinuations
of the above.

> should be able to
> find that out...but the fact is the system isn't what you think.

And what is it that you believe I think about the system? Perhaps you're
making yet another irrational conclusion?

> It is
> very imperfect.

"The system" is nothing but people, and people are absolutely fallible. I
never said otherwise. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make our
best effort to be as sure as possible.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"