3D Gun Co Owner a Wanted Man

[Get Off My Lawn]

Sorry for the delay, had to get to a computer to respond, too much for the ipad which can't seem to handle quoting.

First you said:

the first part of which is absolutely true and a basis of our justice system, the second part is factually correct but a little tinfoilish in tone, that is I agree that they have good technical capability but that doesn't mean that they could manufacture all of the evidence presented in this case or that they did. I think it important to note that we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be.

Then you said:

which was followed by:




some of this is obviously not intended to be taken literally, but then I respond

which is the tone of what was being said IMO. To be more precise, what you meant was that he could not be convicted because you distrust authority. You also equate "doubt" with "reasonable doubt" which is clearly a problem as a threshold of any doubt would make it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything.

So that's where that came from, and you aren't just saying that we should distrust government allegations as you describe:

you said is that were you on the jury you would disregard all facts because you think they are all tainted by a government that you distrust.

I don't happen to think that the government really cares about Cody Wilson, he's mostly just kinda a big deal in his own mind, but let's assume that he's infuriated the deep state and they are intent on getting him as you presume. They have a few options, let's first look at the one which is playing out and I think is was well described by @pinkbunny :


The gov had other options, he could have been killed in a random shooting or industrial accident, or maybe they could have arrested him for distributing the plans in spite of the court order (trumped up charges perhaps) and stick him in a hole. Austin is indeed very liberal, maybe they could have pulled his business license, audited his property and sales taxes. Gov could certainly have hacked his website and altered the plans in some small way and then watched the revised plans be widely distributed eventually discrediting him.

Ockhams razor comes in because what's playing out would be a wildly complicated conspiracy that will be very difficult to maintain while there are many far simpler solutions once you've set the rules of the game as the deep state isn't going to follow any laws to meet their goals. The obvious conclusion is that while they may have taken an extra look into his affairs, it is really most likely that he diddled the girl and then ran away.

Finally you ask:

No, I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate. I decide what to believe by looking at the facts. This is complicated by the bias and emotion that surrounds every important issue, but I think it important to evaluate things as calmly as possible even when I feel strongly about an issue.

How would you answer the same question, because based on what you've said you'd start by distrusting everything, then disregarding all facts, and so you obviously end up in the same place you started. You seem happy with this approach, and it is quite prevalent on the internet, it just isn't very productive.

I hope that clarifies things.
Jim

My "He wears skinny jeans, gotta be guilty." was a bit of pointing out absurdity without the facts with absurdity, and just plain being a smart ass.
I'm curious to see what comes of it, and I don't trust any of them.

 

[SPST]

He's now been arrested in Taiwan.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/21/3d-gun-cody-wilson-arrested-taiwan/?yptr=yahoo

"The American Institute of Taiwan cancelled Wilson's passport and Taiwan's National Immigration Agency said he therefore no longer had a legal status in Taiwan and was "now urging the American Institute of Taiwan to issue a valid travel document for Mr. Wilson, so he can be deported back to the US accordingly."

 

[JimP42]

It is complicated to quote everything carefully. I will try to keep this straight and coherent. First, I'm glad we now have an actual discussion going.

the first part of which is absolutely true and a basis of our justice system, the second part is factually correct but a little tinfoilish in tone, that is I agree that they have good technical capability but that doesn't mean that they could manufacture all of the evidence presented in this case or that they did. I think it important to note that we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be.

I am definitely a little tinfoilish. That doesn't mean they aren't out to get me (or us all). [emoji4] More later on your second comment.

which is the tone of what was being said IMO. To be more precise, what you meant was that he could not be convicted because you distrust authority. You also equate "doubt" with "reasonable doubt" which is clearly a problem as a threshold of any doubt would make it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything.

Here are the first two legal definitions I found online for "reasonable doubt":

• Definition of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt published by the National Association for Court Management: The standard in a criminal case requiring that the jury be satisfied to a moral certainty that every element of a crime has been proven by the prosecution. This standard of proof does not require that the state establish absolute certainty by eliminating all doubt, but it does require that the evidence be so conclusive that all reasonable doubts are removed from the mind of the ordinary person.
• (Merriam Webster Legal Dictionary)
  
  
  Legal Definition of reasonable doubt
  : a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof all persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt —Texas Penal Code — see also standard of proof — compare clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence
  
  Note: Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant. A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.

I'm not sure what you think reasonable doubt means, but both "moral certainty" and "all reasonable doubts are removed from the mind of the ordinary person" are going to be very hard to meet in these kinds of cases (where there is a clear conflict of interest/ulterior motive for the prosecution).

As I understood before I looked it up, and have confirmed now, "reasonable doubt" is a more stringent _legal_ standard than just "doubt" used normally. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that you are sure enough (morally certain) to send someone to jail or execution based on everything you know about the case (both sides of it). To turn your own earlier question around, are you OK with a system that can send anyone to jail with falsified evidence? Is it OK if it happens to you or your family, just so that the system is "workable"?

So that's where that came from, and you aren't just saying that we should distrust government allegations as you describe:

you said is that were you on the jury you would disregard all facts because you think they are all tainted by a government that you distrust.

I didn't say I would entirely disregard the evidence (whether the evidence is presenting facts is what we are disputing I think [emoji4] ). I would certainly not assume their veracity. I have been on a criminal jury a couple of times. I know how it works. I voted to convict on the most recent one a couple years ago.

My distrust is not of every case, only the ones where there is a clear ulterior motive or conflict of interest on the governments part.

I don't happen to think that the government really cares about Cody Wilson, he's mostly just kinda a big deal in his own mind, but let's assume that he's infuriated the deep state and they are intent on getting him as you presume. They have a few options, let's first look at the one which is playing out and I think is was well described by @pinkbunny :

The gov had other options, he could have been killed in a random shooting or industrial accident, or maybe they could have arrested him for distributing the plans in spite of the court order (trumped up charges perhaps) and stick him in a hole. Austin is indeed very liberal, maybe they could have pulled his business license, audited his property and sales taxes. Gov could certainly have hacked his website and altered the plans in some small way and then watched the revised plans be widely distributed eventually discrediting him.

Ockhams razor comes in because what's playing out would be a wildly complicated conspiracy that will be very difficult to maintain while there are many far simpler solutions once you've set the rules of the game as the deep state isn't going to follow any laws to meet their goals. The obvious conclusion is that while they may have taken an extra look into his affairs, it is really most likely that he diddled the girl and then ran away.

Could be. I don't know, and I can't. And since I can't trust the gov evidence in this case, I never will and could not vote to convict him. Even if he did it. That’s the way our justice system is (properly) designed. Some guilty go free in order to minimize the innocents wrongly convicted.

If they did this dishonestly, there are lots of ways they could have done it. That doesn't mean it is less likely to be a setup because they chose a particular method. And you didn't address my earlier question - which is the simplest option - gov critics have an amazing high sex crime proclivity, the general population does but we don't know it, or the gov is persecuting their critics.

Finally you ask:

No, I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate. I decide what to believe by looking at the facts. This is complicated by the bias and emotion that surrounds every important issue, but I think it important to evaluate things as calmly as possible even when I feel strongly about an issue.

You keep using this word "facts". I do not think it means what you think it means.
How are you going to judge whether the claims presented as evidence are facts if you admit already that the gov has the motive means and opportunity to falsify them?

Are you _sure_ you are looking at this without bias or emotion? Or are you biased toward believing authority, and maybe a little scared of a world where they aren't trustworthy? ("unworkable", chaotic, etc...) Think about it.

How would you answer the same question, because based on what you've said you'd start by distrusting everything, then disregarding all facts, and so you obviously end up in the same place you started. You seem happy with this approach, and it is quite prevalent on the internet, it just isn't very productive.

In this case, yes, I would distrust all the evidence presented. It might be possible to convince me, not sure how, maybe with corraborating evidence from before DD was publicly doing what it does, that I was satisfied wasn't faked.

My standard is where there is a clear conflict of interest or ulterior motive.

You evidently agree with me - you keep saying things like:
- we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be
- I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate.

You just haven't taken the next logical step to where I am.

Jim

 

[GymB]

As I understood before I looked it up, and have confirmed now, "reasonable doubt" is a more stringent _legal_ standard than just "doubt" used normally.

To clarify this, having no doubt is a higher standard, ie more stringent, than having no reasonable doubt. It's hard to tell if you and I agree on this based on how you've written it. In the end it is up to each juror to decide if his or her doubts are reasonable.

I didn't say I would entirely disregard the evidence

but then you set an impossibly high bar for the prosecution.

I would distrust all the evidence presented. It might be possible to convince me, not sure how, maybe with corraborating evidence from before DD was publicly doing what it does, that I was satisfied wasn't faked.

and then contradict yourself

since I can't trust the gov evidence in this case, I never will and could not vote to convict him. Even if he did it. That’s the way our justice system is (properly) designed.

Also worth pointing out that you are incorrect on this. The system is designed for the jurors to consider the evidence and you have said that you will not do that. Prejudging based on media reporting and personal opinions is not how our system is designed.

My standard is where there is a clear conflict of interest or ulterior motive.

But you haven't shown any link between ATF or even some shady government authority and the Austin Police Dept which is who filed the charges, so no conflict or ulterior motive. Any federal stuff is going to be related to his flight, of which he is clearly guilty. It'll be interesting to see if he applies for asylum claiming to be being persecuted by the government. BTW, not claiming that he hasn't been targeted, just that I tend to believe enough of the evidence presented to think that he should be charged.

taken the next logical step to where I am

Respectfully, that is because you've departed from logic.

 

[JimP42]

To clarify this, having no doubt is a higher standard, ie more stringent, than having no reasonable doubt. It's hard to tell if you and I agree on this based on how you've written it. In the end it is up to each juror to decide if his or her doubts are reasonable.


but then you set an impossibly high bar for the prosecution.

and then contradict yourself

Also worth pointing out that you are incorrect on this. The system is designed for the jurors to consider the evidence and you have said that you will not do that. Prejudging based on media reporting and personal opinions is not how our system is designed.


But you haven't shown any link between ATF or even some shady government authority and the Austin Police Dept which is who filed the charges, so no conflict or ulterior motive. Any federal stuff is going to be related to his flight, of which he is clearly guilty. It'll be interesting to see if he applies for asylum claiming to be being persecuted by the government. BTW, not claiming that he hasn't been targeted, just that I tend to believe enough of the evidence presented to think that he should be charged.


Respectfully, that is because you've departed from logic.

If you say so. I disagree.

My bar for evidence is so high that is probably impossible to meet. Whatever. Call it a contradiction to leave a little room if you like.

I will consider the evidence. I will just be very skeptical whether it represents actual facts.

It is not my fault or the defendants fault the the gov has destroyed its own credibility. I am not required to prove the gov did it, or show any link between the feds and Austin. Nor is the defense. It is solely the prosecutions job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are demonstrably not trustworthy that is impossible (or very very hard). That said, the obvious link between them is Wilson himself.

You keep arguing but you haven’t answered the core question. When and why and how far do you believe the gov if you don’t believe them all the time? Can you categorically dismiss the possibility of a frame or set up in order to vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on a jury? You say you “tend to believe enough of the evidence”. That’s sufficient for “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Take that next step...

 

[GymB]

If you say so. I disagree.

My bar for evidence is so high that is probably impossible to meet. Whatever. Call it a contradiction to leave a little room if you like.

I will consider the evidence. I will just be very skeptical whether it represents actual facts.

It is not my fault or the defendants fault the the gov has destroyed its own credibility. I am not required to prove the gov did it, or show any link between the feds and Austin. Nor is the defense. It is solely the prosecutions job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are demonstrably not trustworthy that is impossible (or very very hard). That said, the obvious link between them is Wilson himself.

You keep arguing but you haven’t answered the core question. When and why and how far do you believe the gov if you don’t believe them all the time? Can you categorically dismiss the possibility of a frame or set up in order to vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on a jury? You say you “tend to believe enough of the evidence”. That’s sufficient for “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Take that next step...

You keep wanting to have the trial here on the forum, the “core question” as you’ve framed it is irrelevant. It is unnecessary and even inappropriate to try to make a decision “beyond a reasonable doubt” given the limited information reported by the media. The standard for arrest is very different.

 

[JimP42]

You keep wanting to have the trial here on the forum, the “core question” as you’ve framed it is irrelevant. It is unnecessary and even inappropriate to try to make a decision “beyond a reasonable doubt” given the limited information reported by the media. The standard for arrest is very different.

The standard for arrest (on cases like this where there is a conflict of interest) is a joke. Shop for a liberal judge to issue a warrant. Hey - maybe in Austin! That isn’t even a discussion.

The trial question is THE relevant one (well, besides @SPST’s) - essentially when will people start to use jury nullification to tell the feds to piss off when they go after their political enemies?

 

[noway2]

You keep arguing but you haven’t answered the core question. When and why and how far do you believe the gov if you don’t believe them all the time? Can you categorically dismiss the possibility of a frame or set up in order to vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on a jury? You say you “tend to believe enough of the evidence”. That’s sufficient for “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

When I read this, the case of the Las Vegas shooter came to mind. Too many oddities and signs of a potential cover up. Things like that cause great amounts of suspicion when it comes to the veracity of the govt.

 

[GymB]

The standard for arrest (on cases like this where there is a conflict of interest) is a joke. Shop for a liberal judge to issue a warrant. Hey - maybe in Austin! That isn’t even a discussion.

The trial question is THE relevant one (well, besides @SPST’s) - essentially when will people start to use jury nullification to tell the feds to piss off when they go after their political enemies?

Trying to answer the trial question is just mental masturbation, all we think we know is what’s been reported in the media and I’m pretty sure that I could find a quote of you saying that it’s unfair and/or unwise to try people in the media.

I still think that you’re a few steps on the wrong side of reason, but you clearly enjoy it and there is no shortage of support for your opinion, so rock on.