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

[Machjo]

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 naïve 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 naïve 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?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

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]

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 naïve at the very least.

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]

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 naïve at the very least.



Maybe along with being class-prejudiced?

A special case of the general proposition.

 

[lone wolf]

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]

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]

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.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/conflicts/index.htm#the_second_lie

 

[AnnaG]

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

Go back to reading your book of violence. You obviously have no idea what people are talking about here.

 

[Twila]

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.

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

No, he was referring to a person he knows in real life. No religious inference was meant.

 

[Machjo]

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

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

 

[selfsame]

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

 

[AnnaG]

Oh, ffs. Fenceposts have more smarts.

 

[selfsame]

What does the Qur'án 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]

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

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

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]

Banana peels have more smarts.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Banana peels have more smarts.

I am not currently representing banana peels, but I have a call in to them.

 

[lone wolf]

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]

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.

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]

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

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 don’t 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.