Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
This is a legal matter...
I thought we were discussing who the bomber was, not if it can be proven. You are talking about something unrelated to the discussion at hand. Courts don't determine who did something, they determine who the government prosecutes. Different things.
So this is not a legal matter as discussed. That would explain the disconnect. The legal matter is separate and not happening yet.
This is a legal matter, period. There is nothing to discuss on this.
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
You're arguing semantics here and are wrong.
Actually no, I made the statement. The semantic argument is what you started. I made a simple statement, that was just a quote from the highest authority in the land. You don't like it, and started adding in semantic nuances to try to make me wrong, when I wasn't.
The person who makes the first statement that is then corrected based on semantics isn't the one "arguing semantics".
You're stating that the Governor is the highest legal authority in the land. He is not. The Supreme Court of Texas is the highest legal authority of the land.
You're arguing that the governor has the authority to declare legal guilt. Which you pointed out in one of your previous posts. Which is clearly not the case.
Proving guilt is on the court system to look at the evidence and come to an answer on the matter. The governor doesn't have this authority.
He is not a judge or a jury member or any other person who is given the authority to prove guilt. Thus he should not be declaring that this now dead guy is the bomber.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
You're arguing that the governor has the authority to declare legal guilt.
No, I stated he was the highest authority. The idea of "legal authority" is something you added partway through the conversation to change the semantics of the discussion.
Legal authority was not involved and isn't for a long time. You mentioned police, who are also not a legal authority, they answer to the governor.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
You're arguing that the governor has the authority to declare legal guilt.
Nope, did nothing of the sort.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Incendiary device in a Austin. Unknown if connected to other six bombs.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/austin-explosions/index.html
This one was right up the street from a friend of mine.
He dropped out of our D&D game last night because of it.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Proving guilt is on the court system to look at the evidence and come to an answer on the matter.
No. "Determining legal guilt" is the job of the court system. They neither have to prove anything, nor do they have to match actual guilt to legal guilt.
The closer they get to proof, and the closer they get to keeping real guilt and legal guilt aligned the happier people are with them. But those are very different things.
Who "is" guilty is simply a fact. Who has the most access to know who is guilty of any person we have access to is the governor. He has more access to information and more freedom to expose the truth than the court system who are constrained by "legal guilt" which is an extremely different topic.
-
-
@scottalanmiller regardless of you and dustin's love for each other, calling the person anything other than suspected bomber is potentially inaccurate.
It may end up as fact, and thus accurate, but the people you are quoting have no idea if it is a fact or not at the time of the articles being posted.
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller regardless of you and dustin's love for each other, calling the person anything other than suspected bomber is potentially inaccurate.
This is true, but sadly remains true regardless of anything we ever learn. Court proceedings never move it past the suspected level. We are, at this point, effectively as much certain as we will ever be. The governor has mentioned him as the (or one of the) bombers. Nothing past this point will ever move us closer to certainty. Sure, additional evidence might come forth, and almost certainly will, but we are way past the accepted point for no longer stating "suspected" as if we stick to what we truly know, we can never move past that.
So we know that he's the bomber within reasonable acceptance at this point. But we also know that "suspected" is always implied in all forensic cases regardless of any other evidence or outcome.
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
It may end up as fact, and thus accurate, but the people you are quoting have no idea if it is a fact or not at the time of the articles being posted.
We don't know what they know or don't. And can never know, that's the problem with all of these cases. We always are in a position of having to trust what is stated. Hence why it never isn't suspected, but at some point we have enough that we have to assume it is correct.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
You're arguing semantics here and are wrong.
Actually no, I made the statement. The semantic argument is what you started. I made a simple statement, that was just a quote from the highest authority in the land. You don't like it, and started adding in semantic nuances to try to make me wrong, when I wasn't.
The person who makes the first statement that is then corrected based on semantics isn't the one "arguing semantics".
The highest authority of the land that matters in this case is the judical system to investigate the case, find the facts and then place blame on whoever.
You are stating that the Governor has the authority to declare this dead guy as the bomber. It isn't his job and he doesn't have the authority or capability to prove this.
It up up to the court system to prove or disprove (since you want to dig into the fact that I didn't specify disprove) if this person is the guilty party or not.
The only thing we at the moment know for a fact that this dead guy is guilty of is running from the police and then his car blew up killing him inside of it.
Anything else beyond that is a stretch and doesn't mean it will become truth just because the Governor says "the bomber has been killed" or whatever statement he leaked to the media.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The highest authority of the land that matters in this case is the judical system to investigate the case, find the facts and then place blame on whoever.
No, you are hung up on the legal process and forget that legal culpability is not being discussed here. You have gone done a rabbit hole that is not relevant. The court is the highest authority as to legal issues, and not relevant here as to who actually did something.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
You are stating that the Governor has the authority to declare this dead guy as the bomber. It isn't his job and he doesn't have the authority or capability to prove this.
Anyone has the authority to declare this guy as the bomber. That's authority given to everyone through the legal process of free speech. You are confusing the authority to declare with the authority to enforce legal culpability. The governor absolutely has the authority to make the declaration.
That it is or isn't his job has nothing to do with the istuation. The he has or doesn't have the capability to prove this has nothing to do with it. The courts have no capability to prove it either, that's not something courts do. Courts are supposed to determine if others have proven something, within a legal framework.
I think you are confused as to what authority, and courts, do here. Courts don't do what you imagine.
It is you that is hung up on authority at all. Of people who have authority to know and expose what is known by those with the most access to knowledge, the governor is far above the police or the courts. The courts have limited access to knowledge, are not involved at all yet and may never be, and the police have to report to the governor. Of existing authority and access to information to declare what is known today, the governor is quite literally the most authoritative resource available. The police and media would be close, but not quite as high. The courts wouldn't come close.
You must stop confusing legal responsibility and process with the declaration of actual guilt.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The highest authority of the land that matters in this case is the judical system to investigate the case, find the facts and then place blame on whoever.
No, you are hung up on the legal process and forget that legal culpability is not being discussed here. You have gone done a rabbit hole that is not relevant. The court is the highest authority as to legal issues, and not relevant here as to who actually did something.
You are the person down the rabbit hole. Stating that the Governor is the highest authority of the land and everything else that doesn't matter.
Simply put, guy is dead, dead guy is suspected to be the bomber, dead guy died in car explosion.
His car could've been rigged by the Mob for all we know.
-
The Governor isn't on the investigative team, no matter how close in communication he is with said team.
-
No announcements have been made by the team or the FBI.
-
The court is the highest authority as to legal issues, and not relevant here as to who actually did something."
This is the only fucking time that courts matter. . . to PROVE who done it! And they work with the investigators to gather the proof and then make a declaration in a court of law saying "You're guilty" or "Not Guilty"
How is that difficult to understand?
Instead the Governor has come out and said "We got the guilty guy, and he blew up" skipping all of the Judicial system and placing blame on this guy before the investigation has occurred!
-
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The only thing we at the moment know for a fact that this dead guy is guilty of is running from the police and then his car blew up killing him inside of it.
We don't even know that, we have to trust in the "authority" to declare this from the police or governor or media - all the same institutions you are now claiming have no authority to determine if that is true. Under your logic, we can't know even this until a court finds him guilty of it, something unlikely to ever happen as there is no point is legally pursuing something liek this on a dead guy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The only thing we at the moment know for a fact that this dead guy is guilty of is running from the police and then his car blew up killing him inside of it.
We don't even know that, we have to trust in the "authority" to declare this from the police or governor or media - all the same institutions you are now claiming have no authority to determine if that is true. Under your logic, we can't know even this until a court finds him guilty of it, something unlikely to ever happen as there is no point is legally pursuing something liek this on a dead guy.
I need your address, I want to ship you a
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
- The Governor isn't on the investigative team, no matter how close in communication he is with said team.
And? The team answers to him. They work for him. No one, literally no one, is more authoritative. You are cherry picking authority to meet your goals. You say you want authority, but then when someone is MORE authoritative than the person you pick, you come up with a new requirement. First you wanted the police, but it was the police's own authority that stated the situation. So you changed to the courts, but they don't apply. Now you are picking investigators.
You are moving your definition of authority because you are starting with the answer you want, and trying to find any one that "feels" like an authority figure that hasn't disagreed with your desired answer and you move the goal posts until you find something that matches what you want the answer to be.
Bottom line... there is no definitive authority on forensics, ever. All forensic situations are grey areas of "suspected". At some point we have to accept that either we will never know enough to be comfortable or at some point there is adequate knowledge to accept that we "know" but nothing, NOTHING is every 100% certain.
Once the governor has stated something, there is nothing, NOTHING in the government that is more authoritative. You must now, with no exception, either accept that the government processes will never be enough for you (whcih is totally fine, I agree we can't trust the government) or you must accept that as much authority as there can ever be as been provided within your context of authority.
That's where we are. It's as far as it goes in your system.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The only thing we at the moment know for a fact that this dead guy is guilty of is running from the police and then his car blew up killing him inside of it.
We don't even know that, we have to trust in the "authority" to declare this from the police or governor or media - all the same institutions you are now claiming have no authority to determine if that is true. Under your logic, we can't know even this until a court finds him guilty of it, something unlikely to ever happen as there is no point is legally pursuing something liek this on a dead guy.
I need your address, I want to ship you a
The funny thing is that you and you alone feel that the governor isn't enough and that we can't trust what he has determined and you think I need a tinfoil hat for having pointed out that you dont' trust anyone?
I'm the one who trusted the governor and the media that something pretty obvious is something that they knew enough about.
The term "tin foil hat" refers to NOT trusting the government, not to trusting them.
-
From the description given by Zuckerberg, Facebook users appear to have been socially engineered to steal the data of non-users by Alksandr Kogan a professor hired by Cambridge Analytica to "hack" users for them in violation of Facebook ToS. Then Facebook caught them and got CA and the hacker to certify that the data had been destroyed, but instead the team took the illicit data and used it to run several political campaigns.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
From the description given by Zuckerberg, Facebook users appear to have been socially engineered to steal the data of non-users by Alksandr Kogan a professor hired by Cambridge Analytica to "hack" users for them in violation of Facebook ToS. Then Facebook caught them and got CA and the hacker to certify that the data had been destroyed, but instead the team took the illicit data and used it to run several political campaigns.
That is the way i read it. They first sold it to the Ted Cruz campaign, then he fell out. They then peddled it to Trump. The story goes wonky after that. I would comment further but not having the ability to think gets painful sometimes.
-
