Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Liar, liar pants on fire....

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 04 Jul 13 8:34 AM | 23 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 13919 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 13916 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The really sad thing about this case is that it fills a tragic story with hatred, division and revenge rather than compassion and understanding.

It's possible to inhabit either of the parties minds and understand what occurred in a human sort of way. I can sorta imagine the thought pathways in either case. Pathways that led to an accident of mutual fear and misunderstanding which a minute's conversation might have resolved.

And there's sympathy and sadness and pity and ultimately resolution in that thought process.

But instead we are asked to submit our understanding to a set of rules intended to find if someone is to blame and ought to be punished.

Sometimes the law is too primitive a tool to be used in the heavy landscape of human emotions.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Liar, liar pants on fire....
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Thu, 04 Jul 13 4:35 AM 		Msg. 13916 of 54959

hi clo,

i forgot what i ate for lunch yesterday.

i remember the first line of an essay i wrote about bishop suger of st denis in 1987. i remember writing a piece on john of gorze in 1982 but not a fact about him.

memory is fickle.

the forensic testimony i've seen said the sweatshirt was hanging off m's chest. does that make you a liar because you said he held the gun to m's chest if it is true that the shirt was hanging down?

no. just mistaken.

sometimes folks see lies when all sorts of alternatives explain an error. lies imply deliberately misleading someone. not merely being mistaken.

i know you desperately want z to be guilty. but the evidence of harm to z's face tells you that a self-defence claim is plausible.

if it can't be ruled out, doubt exists.

so the prosecution must show malice and intent to undermine z's defence. they are not even close.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next