Non-IT News Thread
-
@dbeato said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dbeato said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Um... yes that is how authority works. Someone or people have put some person into that position. Authority. . .
That's not how authority works, that's how society likes to make you think it works. Some random person says "authority" and you just accept it. That's really just marketing.
Well if they are the president, Director of Security Agencies, Senators, Police Chieft, your boss you name it, they have authority whether you agree with it or not. You don't need to follow it but what they say has authority over what they have been entrusted to.
Yes, if you accept that all people have authority, everyone has some degree of authority. But to be the authority is different.
I'm an authority, your an authority, the president is an authority, etc.
For example, the police have the authority to arrest someone under US law, or Texas law in this case. They are the legal authority to arrest. They are not the legal authority to determine guilt. A Texas court has the legal authority to determine guilt. But neither the police nor the courts have any more authority to determine who actually did something than anyone else is, you, me, the media, etc.
The power to rule is a form of authority, but only authority over what they can physical coerce. Authority, in the more general sense, does not exist in that way.
Yes authority is the right to exercise power legally entitled to the position your are in.
Not quite, it's the power to exercise but is not tied to legality. By definition, "authority" is simply taken by power. That power might come from the legal system, but might not. Authority and legality don't go together unless you use the specific term "legal authority."
Legal authority is a specific context of authority that happens only within the courts.
-
For example, if you murder someone, you are guilty of murder. Period. It is fact.
No one might know that you did it, but you are still guilty.
A court might try you and find you guilty, that's legal guilt. They might also not have enough evidence, mistrial, or just make a mistake and not find you guilty. That doesn't change your actual guilt, but it does make you legally innocent.
Courts have nothing to do with actual guilt, they only are involved with legal guilt which sometimes matches actual guilt, and sometimes does not. Two different, loosely related, concepts.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example, if you murder someone, you are guilty of murder. Period. It is fact.
No one might know that you did it, but you are still guilty.
A court might try you and find you guilty, that's legal guilt. They might also not have enough evidence, mistrial, or just make a mistake and not find you guilty. That doesn't change your actual guilt, but it does make you legally innocent.
Courts have nothing to do with actual guilt, they only are involved with legal guilt which sometimes matches actual guilt, and sometimes does not. Two different, loosely related, concepts.
What the hell does this have to do with the fact that the Texas governor is a leak to the media. He has no authority to essentially call this case closed and come out with an announcement like this.
For all we know, this guy who was killed by explosion was a target of a possibly still alive bomber.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example, if you murder someone, you are guilty of murder. Period. It is fact.
No one might know that you did it, but you are still guilty.
A court might try you and find you guilty, that's legal guilt. They might also not have enough evidence, mistrial, or just make a mistake and not find you guilty. That doesn't change your actual guilt, but it does make you legally innocent.
Courts have nothing to do with actual guilt, they only are involved with legal guilt which sometimes matches actual guilt, and sometimes does not. Two different, loosely related, concepts.
What the hell does this have to do with the fact that the Texas governor is a leak to the media. He has no authority to essentially call this case closed and come out with an announcement like this.
For all we know, this guy who was killed by explosion was a target of a possibly still alive bomber.
Yes, but that unknown is unrelated to authority. The governor is the ultimate authority in this matter, far higher than the police. But neither he, nor the police, nor the courts can determine definitely who did what. But when it comes to legal authority, he's as high as you go with a state level case.
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example, if you murder someone, you are guilty of murder. Period. It is fact.
No one might know that you did it, but you are still guilty.
A court might try you and find you guilty, that's legal guilt. They might also not have enough evidence, mistrial, or just make a mistake and not find you guilty. That doesn't change your actual guilt, but it does make you legally innocent.
Courts have nothing to do with actual guilt, they only are involved with legal guilt which sometimes matches actual guilt, and sometimes does not. Two different, loosely related, concepts.
What the hell does this have to do with the fact that the Texas governor is a leak to the media. He has no authority to essentially call this case closed and come out with an announcement like this.
For all we know, this guy who was killed by explosion was a target of a possibly still alive bomber.
Yes, but that unknown is unrelated to authority. The governor is the ultimate authority in this matter, far higher than the police. But neither he, nor the police, nor the courts can determine definitely who did what. But when it comes to legal authority, he's as high as you go with a state level case.
No. . . the highest authority in texas would be the Supreme Court of Texas. . .
This is a legal matter, a case of damages and harm to people. The governor is not in charge of legal cases such as this, and the FBI is investigating the case and they have more authority than this clown does in this case.
IE he isn't the ultimate authority in the matter as there are others who have more insight and knowledge about what is going on.
This is a case that has to go to court, no matter what to actually determine legal guilt. Even if the suspect is truly the person behind the crime.
You're arguing semantics here and are wrong. The governor doesn't have the authority to declare this guy the bomber. That would be the court's responsibility to do, based on examining evidence and going through the court process to determine legal guilt.
-
@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.
-
@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".
-
@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.
