jajrussel

My understanding is that if you stack murder cases and the defendant is found not guilty, then you find evidence that proves the defendant did in fact do one or more of the murders. The defense attorney will argue double jeopardy should the prosecution pursue trial for the murders they have new evidence for. Is my understanding wrong? Now I would like to repeat your question how is that different from a statute of limitations? To me it would seem completely different other than the possible outcome of no retrial On the other hand if my understanding is correct they could legally press for trial of any murder not pursued in the original trial. Now, i am not sure exactly what a strawman is. I’m not sure if it is Innocence, naivety, or that i simply lack the experience one would have to have to know what a straw-man is so I will have to Google it. 😇

😒😊😂 Okay, my bad... I think it was Frank Herbert who wrote, fear is the mind killer? I would add that stress exposes the soul...

A cornucopia of available writings https://www.sacred-texts.com/ Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the cross was an actual X shape and that the literal translation is simply tree. I would imagine that the height of the cross would be relative to to the Roman in charge of accomplishing the task I have read that the Romans considered a wooden pole sufficient. For crucifying the common Christian when done for display. I believe it was Christians who made the claim of martyrs made and the methods used. I also read that the practice was originally reserved by the romans to punish slaves in large numbersI have read that the cross has its roots in ancient paganism and that the current version of the cross as a Christian symbol came about three centuries after the coming of Christ around the time of Constantine. From the world Atlas, found after Googling history of the cross. I believe the assumption was that in the times referenced any maiden would presumably be a virgin. So the original would have said something to the effect a young maiden would be found to be with child which with assumption becomes a young virgin found to be with child it becomes even more interesting when you read how Islam deals with both Mary and Jesus and how it is presented.

I don’t know I consciously chose to call 911 about 4 days after having an internal debate questioning why anyone would want to live eternally with the world being the way it is. I was questioning buddhism assuming an atheist point of view. Why want to go through it all again for the sake of a possible improvement? Now I’m wondering did I exercise free will by calling 911? Yes I believe I did, but didn’t I also answer to a basic animal instinct to live? Three stents later my heart still beats. Now, I’ve made a conscious decision to wear a box designed to shock the hell out of me should it become necessary. The box itself scares me. I had to be talked into wearing it . So is wearing it an act of free will, or is it once again animal instinct? I have become somewhat opinionated and short tempered. I would think that if These are signs of animal instinct than perhaps I was exercising free will before the heart attack and maybe the surest sign of free will presents as animal instinct. I think that if a person chooses to attach the choice of free will as a gift from a supreme being then a person shouldn’t be surprised that the animal instinct to survive might present as an act of free will even if it is entirely human trait to consider eternal life an option readily accessible through free will and a benevolent supreme being. Now I question. When before I simply wanted to know and was willing to accept reality at face value when told I was wrong I still wonder why anyone would want to live forever but I suspect should I wake up soon on an operating table, or in a recovery room that I will instinctively yield to all their poking a prodding accepting that I have absolutely no free will to build upon if it can’t coexist as animal instinct. Otherwise I don’t know what to think about free will.

I’m familiar with the term kiss ass. It’s the family motto so kiss ass.

What defendant? I’m an independent liberal socialist used to be registered Democrat. Produce a defendant. Produce a legitimate court. Produce a legitimate argument that Trump wasn’t legally elected. I would never expect a republican to agree with my politics I want social medicine and open boarders with Mexico and Canada to include free trade between both countries simply because I think it would lead to economic stability and end the constant flood of immigration from at least the border states. I might be wrong about what I believe, but I know with absolute certainty that Democrats won’t do anything they claim as party lines because they have controlled the Presidency and both house and senate not that long ago. What did they do about Dacca. If memory serves there was a presidential decree. What did they do about about Medicare 4 all. Another decree called affordable healthcare when what they meant was affordable insurance as defined by the insurers Protected by federal judges? Not really.had they displayed any real desire to follow the party beliefs as stated on their web page Hillary would have still lost because the insurers would have thrown their full weight behind anyone supporting their cause which is to remove the parts of Obama care they found financially restrictive. In the meantime Democrats are moving toward the rally cry of we have to do this one tiny step at a time and half assed like they did with Dacca when they were in power to clench the deal but didn’t. If we are going to rule by Presidential decree we could simply do away with Congress and make due with handpicked federal judges selected by the parties in power just in case the people screw up and elect the wrong President, again. The OP asked what has to be done to get rid of the clown. Sorry paraphrasing. The answer...Vote him out... wow! no trial necessary... I shouldn’t have to be reminded a million times that no man is above the Law. Not in America.That simple fact alone should be enough to rouse the curious to ask what the hell is going on. That people feel the need to imply that laws have been broken constantly is self evident that no laws have been broken at least not laws they wish to remain hidden from review. They couldn’t control Muller but honestly I’m expected to believe that only republicans were found out in his investigation. whistle blower laws are designed to protect whistle blowers from retribution from their bosses. Honestly what can the President do? Fire them? Prevent from ever getting another job. No man is above the law but every man citizen or otherwise is entitled to due process they can claim that the current process isn’t criminal therefore due process is a mute point, but what happens when immigration is declared a civil process therefore no due process for immigrants legal or otherwise is warranted by their own mandate? Amazing that politicians should rally around the call of culpable quid pro quo. What is politics if not quid pro quo? Is that why Americans politicians are always giving our money away?No quid pro quo Allowed. What are we buying? A thorn in Russia or Chinas side. Why? What did Americans gain giving away weapons with or without without quid pro quo? One would think that we would be the world’s favorite Sugar daddy not the evil Empire that we we are presented as. I would like to thank Migl. For giving me the opportunity to vent. The truth is I have been tired of being an old white man with an opinion afraid to open his mouth simply because I am an old white man with an opinion. Vote trump out it’s that simple. Then fit him for an orange jumpsuit if it is warranted. If he has done something wrong then runs to some foreign state to avoid prosecution then I’m betting that quid pro quo will become the next rally call of his haters and the foreign state his recipient country and they will own us completely.

Does Adam Schiff's rendition qualify as a recording. Is this why there has yet to be a word for word comparison of the two actual renditions? Isn’t lobbing about quid pro quo?

Republicans don’t have to be Trump supporters. The attempt to turn republicans against Trump was the first shot fired after he won the election. No one has to toe the party line not even Mike Pence. It should be clear as print since the party lines are written on their websites, but you can download them and check them off one at a time. Nope no legislation submitted, andvoted for by most in either partyalong party lines...

To what end ? My understanding is that A very clear succinct quote was given by Schiff, which I guess was necessary because the general practice had been to delete any and everything that might later be assumed to be evidence. I’m guessing that Adam Schiff with first hand knowledge of his own parties tactics acted to prevent the republicans from benefiting from a proven tactic, with his narrative. Moving the transcript to a secure server may have been a concerned White House member acting to prevent the same thing from happening. Cause if the recorded conversation proved not enough to impeach,then the question of why recorded conversations between the president and other country leaders, presumably assumed classified would be found on an unsecured server. Another 4 years of turmoil... Aparently the republicans are as lax in security as Hillary, and well, Hillary is old news, a lessen that should have been learnt. Actually I’m surprised no one has brought it up yet. Note it couldn’t have been a secret server there are no secrets in the White House. So, you must have meant secure😊.

I don’t think the orange jumpsuit is the desired outcome... it would require due process. Which ,They don seem intent on allowing. They took life for granted now they want a do over. The one proven fact is that a President isn’t really needed and politically is a disadvantage.

Actually if these facts are correct i amin full agreement with mistermack there should be no statute of limitations. I’m guessing that part of it is opinion assumed on why only the Murders were pursued for conviction perhaps it was because no statute of limitations on murder allowed for no meddling on a defense lawyers part? Just guessing that the lawyer might want to grasp at what ever straw available hoping to convince a jury that if there is no difference in the Severity of the crimes then then maybe at least one juror would feel that the maximum penalty for murder should be less. Then muck up the conviction because opinion twisted by gifted Rhetoric is easily swayed in these times. so I would agree that there should be no statute of limitations in any of these crimes and would find it hard to believe that there actually are across the board maybe a few. I would guess that a journalist took artistic liberty to to inflame public opinion. But if true, the laws are in serious need of review. but then consider how long the trail might take and the fact that today it only takes one error made by the prosecution to have the guy turned lose to revisit society again... mistermack is not wrong in having an opinion. my opinion is that there is no need to prove every single crime to end a trial if one single conviction has the desired outcome. After all it is not double jeopardy if each murder is a different case requiring a another trial. I would question the prosecution if they stacked the murders hoping for maximum conviction, when doing so that might run the risk of Double Jeopardy If they screw up and lose everything in a single toss of the dice. I’m guessing that anyone thinking that any commiter of the so called lessor crimes will be sorely disappointed if they think a statute of limitations will be applied to them...

Okay... Thank you... I found this ... Is this the post you would like for me to prove wrong? 😇

I don’t know... which is why I asked the OP? 😂🤣😂... I wasn’t clear?

I’m not trying to show anyone as wrong so apparently , according to your own statement, it’s all good... was showing mistermac wrong the point of the OP? I can not agree with this statement anymore as in I think it is perfectly accurate, but once someone argued against me saying that nature was incapable of doing anything. So, if memory serves I am a little puzzled , because I think it was you who made the statement. If I am wrong my apologies in advance. If I am right then we’ll, I am a firm believer that some statutes of limitation should exist for the sake of enlightenment. I either case I agree...

I was installing a piano hinge on a shed door one time when the driver slipped and stabbed me between my thumb and finger it was quick and the blood spurted across the building Managing to nail the supervisor in the chest as he came running around the shed intent on punishing me for cussing loudly which was punishable by firing where i worked at the time. I never really liked that guy, but the blood did spurt. Thankfully the owner was more concerned for my hand than my soul at that particular moment so i managed to keep my job. But until i placed a finger over the hole the blood did spurt with every heart beat. I didn’t really wait to see if it was going to slow down.

Isn’t there a possibility of an assumption here that people can not change? Even when a person is caught is processed and punished he or she will face prosecution the rest of their lives. It may not be legal prosecution, but some might see it as ethical prosecution. A thief is a thief is a thief etc... or a thief, etc. It need not be just a thief. It could be something worse, or less. a business gains an unfair advantage through unethical means. Thousands of lives are ruined. Thousands of lives gain through employment. People die, children are born. Great grandchildren of the victims are taught that they should be, then are, entitled. In the present people are told that If they companies are responsible for the past action they will go out of business thousands will be the new victims of the original unethical act. 😊 When is it ever ethical to let go? It isn’t, but sometimes we should. Unethical business practices are not murder. But tell that to the people on the receiving end... It causes countries to lash out in anger. It can be argued that the only thing done to them, has been done to control a problem that was their grandfathers doing. A problem that was murder, not necessarily committed by an actual family member, but DNA shows that they were closely related, so limiting their growth seems only fair, maybe even ethical? Note the question mark... in the meantime someone who drove a car, or kept a key for some General who was guilty of war crimes lives in mortal fear 40, to 50 years later because as a young adult they were swept up in the mania of a crowd. It might then be argued that no serious crime was committed by the driver/ key holder, but then it would be argued that if that position was taken it would belittle the original lives lost. these kind of questions are rarely concluded by an individual short of murder, yet when the question is concluded be the crowd with the result being murder many people simply write it off to group hysteria, yet it was murder. Maybe worse. I fear pain and trauma. I don’t want to live with it, but I have also learned over time that time heals all memories. Until someone brings them up again. And they will... Now, as in I didn’t always think this way, murder seems a serious crime not to be forgotten. All other crimes though morally serious should at some point have a statute of limitations. I could probably find some scriptural reference, but I don’t mean forgiven, I mean forgotten. As a child I didn’t steal the chocolate bar, but I did steal the dime, actually it wasn’t a dime it was a Japanese coin that I as a child associated as a dime. The clerk kept trying to tell me he couldn’t take the coin, which I was having difficulty understanding. Then of all the luck Pop made his presence known. I survived, but it is where my fear of pain and trauma came from. looking at the sunset knowing poetically that the sun will go down, and that the few years left will seem as no more than a day the events of that day seem inconsequential now, Yet it affected many years. what we decide to do will have long term effects on everyone they need not have even been there. It becomes a mater of semantics. Something that is not really seen as immoral anymore becomes a matter or ethics, because someone thinks it should be viewed in some negative light without regard to the present views of society, because, well it is just wrong that it happened or is happening and no one is doing anything to stop it, or even acknowledge it. with regard to criminality we demand undeniable proofs. Then in the absence of provable guilt we switch to civil law claiming that due process is only due in criminal matters and since civil processes are not criminal processes it s perfectly ethical, since no one would even want to argue that the tactic is also possibly immoral. At the same time they would argue that effecting the economics of a country to control the population for the sins of the countries fathers is not only ethical but warranted At some point it becomes all economics. Change might eventually be seen to be morally warranted, but then it becomes a matter of economics. A sudden change of such magnitude might effect the overall economic stability of the area. The fear of God becomes first and foremost in the thoughts of all evolved to be possibly effected. Even those who lack a belief in God will grasp at straws to protect their existing bank accounts. Then there are the gamblers who will gain through even the threat of economic instability. We live in a world that seems rife with unethical practice. In the meantime Venice is sinking, ice caps are melting we are destroying our planet thru pollution. Killing off whole species. Sorry didn’t mean to ramble on😊, I’ve had way too much time to think lately. It’s a good question. I wonder though who is guilty? Who has gone free? I know what you think about it, but what is the foundation? Not looking for a tell all of stirred up memories. It’s just that the world seems to be going mad at the moment and I am wondering if I or we have, or have had anything to do with what to me seems crowd mania. Is there a reason.Do we have to have a reason for feeling the way we do?Maybe not , but if reasoning will help then maybe people should talk.

Note the 1905 paper is about the only Einstein paper were they still allow a download. Eventually I am going to have to assume some professor understands his work, or be prepared to pay around 89$ per volume for a printed version 89$ is what they were asking for volume 6... They were allowing all to be read freely online using their reader when I visited... but, no doubt that will change... this is way off topic but is in regard to a suggestion that was on topic... Thank you...

Agreed and understood. I called it a condition of no effect. Which is not always true. Things are happening but those things are not easily observed. Then it would be a condition of no apparent effect. Agreed and understand and accepted Thank you, it is were i got the thought to begin with. I searched for the page you posted and started reading note it was from that point that i started trying to explain a connection that seemed clear to me from this point i don’t know how to continue to explain what occurred to me while reading and thinking about this thread without it seeming like i want to argue. I would end up repeating myself, with slightly different rhetoric and i don’t want to do either. So I’ll go back to reading and thinking.

Found this I think this were I got it from. Don’t remember what I was thinking when I read it now. Too many thoughts since then. I saw a connection. Maybe I read too much into it

I’m sorry i missed this yesterday. Don’t know how. I guess i need to use a different device cause things seem to keep showing up haphazardly on my iPhone not to mention that it keeps changing words on me then i have to proof read with a fine tooth comb to try and find the errors the word inertial becomes initial and I reach the point where i can’t find the tree for the forrest, but in answer this this I can’t find it, and suddenly my search apps have become dumb to the point if i mention Einstein and vacuum in a sentence search i keep getting referred to Walmart, Target, and Amazon. If i ever run across the reference i will let you know, but for now I’m done. Thank you

In your reference frame does Newton’s laws of motion still work? Here’s an article that probably oversimplifies things because my understanding of it is that if you are in a frame of reference where Newton’s laws of motion work then you are in an initial reference frame. If my understanding is correct how has your choice of direction removed you from a frame of reference where Newton’s laws of motion work? there is a possibility that I am completely wrong in my understanding of the article and, or in what you are saying? 🙂 https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module1_Inertial.htm#IR

Ahh 🤔🙂 Okay! I see... Shaking my head in wonder... but now I’m curious. Before I make a fool of myself, if it is not too late I’ll see if I can figure out how Einstein would have reached his invariance conclusion. I’m assuming now it was a derived revelation rather than an intuitive one, since it has been pointed out that i shouldn’t intuitively assume that if no force acts to change lights speed that invariance might be implied. My bad... Hmm... Now I have to start over from the beginning since I need to understand why no one would reach that conclusion intuitively and why I would assume that they would. Okay! Thank you.

I led with Newton 1st consideration first law of motion... followed by Einstein 2nd consideration empty space, therefore no acting force on light, therefore no acting reason to expect any variance of lights speed which would be my drawn conclusion. If men of science understood Newton’s first law why would they assume or expect a variance? they also accepted Einstein’s condition of empty space. I’m assuming Einstein understood Newton’s first law and that it applies to light as well as any thing else. So in a sense invariance is not an idea he has to invent since Newton’s first law suggests its presence. Maybe I’m wrong, but this time i didn’t just jump to a conclusion without consideration. I thought my understanding of Newton’s first law meant that Newton’s first law made the implication, and I thought that someone ( can’t remember who) questioned where the idea of invariance for the speed of light came from. Stating that he was unable to reach that conclusion from relativity. Maybe I misunderstood, but I wrote what i think, apparently somewhat poorly, because it was not my intent to imply that jumping to a conclusion was the best way to answer that question. I did imply that Newton’s first law suggested invariance, and that Einstein’s condition of Empty Space did nothing to change that implication. Sorry... As to the question about sound waves I’ll have to read it again and see if i can figure out why you would compare sound and light waves and want me to consider them. My understanding is that sound waves don’t carry in a vacuum, so i need to think about the question and why you ask it... Thank you. Thank you for posting this i need to study it, but the first thing it did was remind me of a question i have about force which i have been trying to remember all day long, so thank you.

Basically all I’m saying is that under Newton’s first law there is no reason why anyone should expect c to vary unless they are abandoning Newton’s law for a mathematical precept? I’m not sure if precept is the right word? The expectation that the numbers would stack? Not occurring... Since the subject is light and its motion Physically it should actually be expected to be subject to Newton’s first law first. It came first? Yet Newton’s first law does not support point 1. Newton’s law suggests that unless a force acts in it (light) it’s motion in all ways will not change. 🙂 Note the top portion was in response to Apparently this Martini doesn’t blend well, well accurately and that alone is enough to make things confusing... it allows me to edit... it don’t allow me to edit... it combines at its discretion opposed to mine🤷‍♂️. I guess it what it is...

I’m trying to understand this? If c were a constant that would mean that if you change the medium of empty space to say glass? Water? Etc? C would be unchanging, but the medium is set at empty space by Einstein (generally referred as a vacuum). This is a condition, so long as the condition doesn’t change c is like a constant but it requires the condition to remain so. Under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space) c becomes invariant without regard to how you move through this empty space. Yes, it may seem at odds to what you might expect ( not obvious), but the observation conforms to Newton’s first law of motion at all times as it should. When light passes a large source of gravity it is effected. The confusion comes when it is argued that under the influence of the gravity source c remains c which would violate Newton’s first law Yes, c is c invariantly, but only under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space). Change the condition then there is no reason to suggest that c doesn’t change. To suggest that c (the number) remains the number even as it passes through water would make that number a constant. It isn’t. c (the number) gets smaller as light passes through water. This does not violate Newton’s first law, or Einstein’s invariance of c in a vacuum condition. I’m thinking this through l can’t see where I might be confused 🤷‍♂️. Rhetorically, maybe? Somewhat long winded to the point of confusion? Yeah, I tend to reach that point. Seemingly effortlessly😒, but i don’t think I am confusing the word invariant with constant. Note, to clear up one paragraph when light passes near a large gravity source I’m assuming the presence of that source violates the condition set by Einstein of empty space. Assuming that a vacuum requires a condition of no effect. I’m assuming there is a hardware problem cause this and the Janus post didn’t show up until after I had replied to stranges post which was considerably after all the post were made? I would have preferred to have responded to this post first. What?