necoandjeff wrote:

> Eric, for a lack of anything relevant to say in this thread you are clinging
> to a strategy of constantly harping on what was, at best, a minor side
> issue. What words do I need to use to make you understand the difference
> between some completely objective, unknowable, absolute state of "guilt" and
> the state's necessarily subjective opinion regarding one's guilt.

I understand the difference between what an educated person in black with a
wooden mallet or a group of amateurs "finds" and the truth, without anyone here
telling me. Which is precisely what is wrong with law enforcement and the legal
system.

> Why don't you get off the metaphysical kick

Why don't you get off the "metaphysical" kick and use a better term like
"truth"? You keep on clinging to what humans, particularly the amateurs, "find"
and hope you are never on the wrong end (nor again, if it has already happened)
because the system you entrust are not capable of knowing the truth.

> and actually make a point here.

Point: people go on and on about what "cannot" be known, but don't even "know"
(or ask) the legal status of the average person for it to make any practical
difference, nor do posters conduct background checks on random strangers around
them regarding their legal status to "know".

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I
can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"