The rich man's laws and the poor man's laws.


Machjo
#1
When it was announced that Russell Williams was charged and later convicted of rapes, murders, breakins, etc., though there was much speculation as to how the high-ranking officials around him from the Queen to the Prime Minister whose aircraft he'd piloted, to his superior officers and his colleagues, to his many subordinates, his best friend, his neighbour, his wife, and even a police officer could all have missed the signs, no one ever suspected any of them to have been nave and everyone seemed to have accepted the possibility that he'd kept his activities secret from everyone.

Yet when a court finds the common man or woman not guilty of a crime due to its rejecting the notion of guilt by association, many cry foul, insisting that anyone who should choose a criminal as a friend must necessarily be a criminal himself or at least have known of his friend's crimes beyond mere suspicion, or at the very least that he is nave and doesn't know how to choose his friends well, that somehow the courts have gone soft on crime, and that maybe a little vigilate action is warranted in his case, the mob suddenly becoming judge, jury, and executioner.

How is it that we are so quick to judge the common man whose friend ends up being convicted of a crime, yet so fair-minded when the friend of a high-ranking officer is?
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#2
I have researched this phenomenon at great length and devised a theory that appears to account for all the observed facts.

My paper on the topic was, sadly, rejected for publication, but here is the text in it's entirety:




People are idiots.
 
Machjo
#3
Actually I take some of my words back.

I do remember one person wondering out loud how Russell William's wife couldn't have known in spite of them working in different cities. But I'd still not heard a peep about his friend being suspect. Yet I'm sure if Williams had just been a common man, that accusations would have been flying about his friend being nave at the very least.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I have researched this phenomenon at great length and devised a theory that appears to account for all the observed facts.

My paper on the topic was, sadly, rejected for publication, but here is the text in it's entirety:




People are idiots.

Maybe along with being class-prejudiced?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Actually I take some of my words back.

I do remember one person wondering out loud how Russell William's wife couldn't have known in spite of them working in different cities. But I'd still not heard a peep about his friend being suspect. Yet I'm sure if Williams had just been a common man, that accusations would have been flying about his friend being nave at the very least.



Maybe along with being class-prejudiced?

A special case of the general proposition.
 
lone wolf
+5
#5  Top Rated Post
I had a father-in-law who people thought was the salt of the earth, a caring and giving neighbour who'd help anyone no matter who they were - who was also a control freak mean drunk who raped his daughters. People don't come with idiot lights on their foreheads. The deeper the closet, the harder it is to see within
 
Machjo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I had a father-in-law who people thought was the salt of the earth, a caring and giving neighbour who'd help anyone no matter who they were - who was also a control freak mean drunk who raped his daughters. People don't come with idiot lights on their foreheads. The deeper the closet, the harder it is to see within

I can easily believe that if he were particularly careful, even his wife might not have known, assuming she even suspected or wondered.
 
selfsame
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

who was also a control freak mean drunk who raped his daughters.

If you mean the story of Prophet Lot with his two daughters, it is one of the lies of Ezra in his Torah.
www.quran-ayat.com/conflicts/...the_second_lie (external - login to view)
 
AnnaG
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

If you mean the story of Prophet Lot with his two daughters, it is one of the lies of Ezra in his Torah.
The Disagreement of the (external - login to view)

Go back to reading your book of violence. You obviously have no idea what people are talking about here.
 
Twila
+1
#9
We are always told to NOT judge a book by its cover. To give SECOND chances. This can account for some people not seeing how someone truly is.

Also, once we're emotionally invested in someone we don't want to see that kind of horror in them.

Then there is also what was said earlier about the deeper the closet. Those who know they are committing atrocities know to hide it from those around them.

It's why you always read in the news that the serial killer /rapist / mass murderer / child killer etc were quiet and kept to themselves and nobody would have ever expected such behavoir from them.

Guilt by association is only done by cops to pressure someone to rat out a friend. It's not something that your average person holds against another who's an aquaintance or friend of a monster.

Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

If you mean the story of Prophet Lot with his two daughters, it is one of the lies of Ezra in his Torah.
The Disagreement of the (external - login to view)

No, he was referring to a person he knows in real life. No religious inference was meant.
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

If you mean the story of Prophet Lot with his two daughters, it is one of the lies of Ezra in his Torah.
The Disagreement of the (external - login to view)

What does the Qur'n teach about guilt by association?
 
selfsame
#11
So according to this lie of Ezra against Prophet Lot, people started to think: if this is Lot and he was a prophet and he did this to his daughters, so what for other people and they are not prophets!?
In other words: people permitted lewdness to themselves, by the pretext that prophets did something worse. And this is the danger of such lies of Ezra against the prophets.

The Disagreement of the (external - login to view)
 
AnnaG
#12
Oh, ffs. Fenceposts have more smarts.
 
selfsame
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

What does the Qur'n teach about guilt by association?

The guilt by association is the worst guilt which is unforgivable and the associater will go to Hell and no intercession will avail him.

{Quran 4: 116. God forgives not that [anything or anyone] should be associated with Him; but He forgives any sin less than that [associating] to whomsoever He will a.
Whoso associates with God [anything or anyone], has gone astray [away from the truth] into far error.}
.................................................. ..

a Who is prepared for forgiveness and who deserves the forgiveness.
 
Machjo
#14
What does the Qur'n teach about non-sequiturs?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Oh, ffs. Fenceposts have more smarts.

On behalf of fenceposts everywhere, I hereby order you to cease and desist from using my clients (the fenceposts) in comparisons to selfsame, even when the comparison is favorable to my clients.

My clients fear "stupid by association."
 
AnnaG
#16
Banana peels have more smarts.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Banana peels have more smarts.

I am not currently representing banana peels, but I have a call in to them.
 
lone wolf
#18
Of course there's Keith Richards and his heroin bust in Oshawa vs the sentence handed out to anyone else ... or the silence around Millard or Muzzo - unlike any riff-raff who might be busted for the same or lesser offences
 
Machjo
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

The guilt by association is the worst guilt which is unforgivable and the associater will go to Hell and no intercession will avail him.

{Quran 4: 116. God forgives not that [anything or anyone] should be associated with Him; but He forgives any sin less than that [associating] to whomsoever He will a.
Whoso associates with God [anything or anyone], has gone astray [away from the truth] into far error.}
.................................................. ..

a Who is prepared for forgiveness and who deserves the forgiveness.

I wasn't referring to associating others with God.

Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

Guilt by association is only done by cops to pressure someone to rat out a friend. It's not something that your average person holds against another who's an aquaintance or friend of a monster.

That would be bad enough if it were true but my personal observation of the CBSA seems more along the lines of:

'We opine you to be guilty by association so will charge you at taxpayers' expense so as to punish you through the hell of a trial and will then appeal the judge's decision when he rules in your favour so as to punish you yet again at taxpayers' expense through the hell of an appeal.'

After what I've observed of the CBSA I wouldn't put it past them to appeal the appeal. We'll see how the appeal goes first.

But then, if police officers (whose legal education should still be at least somewhat above average) fall into the trap of guilt by association, then I guess we shouldn't be surprised when the general population falls into the same trap.
 
selfsame
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

What does the Qur'n teach about non-sequiturs?

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I wasn't referring to associating others with God.

OK Machjo, my English may not be so good; this may be more relevant, according to the Quran:

{Quran 4: 135. Believers, be 'upright and guides a ' for justice b, witnesses for [the sake of] God c; [therefore, say the true witness] even though it be against yourselves or [your] parents and [your] kinsmen d.

Whether [the man] be rich or poor, God surely is more [than you] Worthy of either e. So do not follow [your] desires that you may not [witness] in justice f.

But if you twist [your tongues to distort the witness g] or turn away [from saying it h], then [surely] God is Most Aware of what you do i.
..................................................

a Of people.
b i.e. be reformers and guides of people enjoining them to justice and equity.
c i.e. and if you give testimony to anyone, be witnesses for [the sake of] God: so dont incline with your witness to anyone, but only say the truth.
d And don't consider the rich or the poor.
e concerning their advantages.
f So that you witness for the rich because of his wealth, not for the poor because you are merciful to him.
g And you don't tell the truth.
h If you are invited to give witness.
i So that He will punish you in the Next Life.

The interpretation is by Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly.
Last edited by selfsame; Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:09 PM..
 
HarperCons
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I have researched this phenomenon at great length and devised a theory that appears to account for all the observed facts.

My paper on the topic was, sadly, rejected for publication, but here is the text in it's entirety:




People are idiots.

you could have just shortened it even more by just one word


capitalism
Last edited by HarperCons; Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:05 PM..
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsameView Post

Teach me some of your wisdom.



It is the most important in the Quran is the associating of others with God; so what was you referring to?
To associate friendly with those who revile your God and the messenger of God?

I was referring to guilt by assiciation.

For example, the police charge my best friend with murder and then decide to charge me as an accomplice to murder for no other reason than that I was the murderer's friend even though I was unaware that he had committed murder. That is an example of guilt by association.
 
selfsame
#23
I have just modified my reply #20, Machjo.
 
Jinentonix
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I wasn't referring to associating others with God.



That would be bad enough if it were true but my personal observation of the CBSA seems more along the lines of:

'We opine you to be guilty by association so will charge you at taxpayers' expense so as to punish you through the hell of a trial and will then appeal the judge's decision when he rules in your favour so as to punish you yet again at taxpayers' expense through the hell of an appeal.'

After what I've observed of the CBSA I wouldn't put it past them to appeal the appeal. We'll see how the appeal goes first.

But then, if police officers (whose legal education should still be at least somewhat above average) fall into the trap of guilt by association, then I guess we shouldn't be surprised when the general population falls into the same trap.

Your problem is assuming the CBSA and the police operate within the same framework. They do not. And based on some of the seriously f*cked up court decisions in Canada (at all levels), I'm not surprised anyone would appeal an appeal.
As for guilt by association, when you are entering customs with someone, it's highly likely they're travelling with you. If you're doing anything illegal, they're going to get nailed as well.
If you're at a friend's house and the cops bust him at home for possession of stolen property, it's going to be pretty hard for the cops to convince a judge that you had anything to with it, especially if you didn't in the first place.


The other thing you have to remember is when you enter customs, technically you're not IN Canada yet. There are certain laws that are not in effect. For example, legally the police cannot search your phone, laptop or any other such device without either your consent or a warrant. At the border, CBSA officers can and will search those items. There's no laws in place that require your permission or a warrant.
People who think the CBSA are simply cops who work at the border and operate under the same framework as the police are sadly and seriously mistaken.
 
Cliffy
+1
#25
 
selfsame
#26
And this is also in the Quran chapter 4:

[Then God – be glorified – explained that anyone commits any sin, then accuses another one with it; then how great his punishment will be:]

Quran 4: 112. And anyone who perpetrates a 'sin by mistake' [unintentionally] or a guilt [intentionally], then ascribes it to an innocent [person] x, he [indeed] bears the burden of a calumny and a flagrant sin y.
.................................................. .........

x So that he will say: "I didn't commit this crime, but 'that person' did commit it"; he ascribes his guilt to an innocent man who is clear of it; as did they accuse Labeed son of Sah'l with the theft, while he was innocent of it.
y Because of his lies and forgery.

It was interpreted by Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly.

I may later on tell you about the hypocrites: sons of Ubairiq.
 
Jinentonix
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

You see, your problem is you actually believe that a govt's authority is derived from the people. Electing a govt that operates with near impunity for its term isn't giving them power, it's giving them control.
 
damngrumpy
#28
Actually a week ago we proved that power and authority comes from the people
They kicked the control freaks as* and threw him out of office they didn't give him
control.
As for people knowing about what someone does is this we are in culture shock
we don't want to believe the person did something because it makes us a poor
judge of character by our own standards we are the most critical judge of ourselve
when faced with ultimate truth we just don't want to see it.
 
Cliffy
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

You see, your problem is you actually believe that a govt's authority is derived from the people. Electing a govt that operates with near impunity for its term isn't giving them power, it's giving them control.

Apathy gave government control. People are waking up and taking back their power. The future looks brighter and the control freaks are either on the run or on the defensive. Those in control are terrified of an aware populace but there is no turning back. The awakening has begun.
 
Machjo
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

Your problem is assuming the CBSA and the police operate within the same framework. They do not. And based on some of the seriously f*cked up court decisions in Canada (at all levels), I'm not surprised anyone would appeal an appeal.
As for guilt by association, when you are entering customs with someone, it's highly likely they're travelling with you. If you're doing anything illegal, they're going to get nailed as well.

If you're at a friend's house and the cops bust him at home for possession of stolen property, it's going to be pretty hard for the cops to convince a judge that you had anything to with it, especially if you didn't in the first place.


The other thing you have to remember is when you enter customs, technically you're not IN Canada yet. There are certain laws that are not in effect. For example, legally the police cannot search your phone, laptop or any other such device without either your consent or a warrant. At the border, CBSA officers can and will search those items. There's no laws in place that require your permission or a warrant.
People who think the CBSA are simply cops who work at the border and operate under the same framework as the police are sadly and seriously mistaken.

FYI, the CBSA deals with cases within Canada too and also collaborates with local police departments.

For example, the police intercept a tourist whose friend committed an immigration infraction and transfer him to the CBSA for deportation.

First off, the police should not be arresting X because Y committed an infraction.

Secondly, the CBSA should not accept the transfer of a detainee into its custody without sufficient evidence as per the balance of probabilities rule.

Given that the balance of probabilities rule is a much lower standard of proof that the presumption of innocence rule, one would think the CBSA would show enough common courtesy to respect at least that.

In my opinion, for the CBSA to lose a case based on the balance of probabilities rule can be attributed only to gross negligence in the evidence collection or corroboration process or vexatious litigation for the purpose of harassment.

Again, unlike the presumption of innocence rule whereby a person must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the balance of probabilities rule requires only that the CBSA prove that its claims are more probably true than not. Based on such a low standard of proof, there is no excuse for the CBSA to ever lose a single case. And to appeal a case it couldn't win on even such a low standard of proof is quite shameful, really.
 
no new posts