PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 20th Jun 2009, 11:50
  #4866 (permalink)  
Airborne Aircrew
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My apostophe hypothesis left something to be desired! Is it just possible that I may have been distracted by outside influences? We will never know - but can probably come to a sensible conclusion!
You were drunk....

The mysterious "something" is of course always possible in any scenario. If we take that course in life there would never be a conviction in the courts. In this case we will never know but again can probably come to a sensible conclusion.
You type before you think don't you. You're wrong again. Firstly, everyone who pleads guilty or no contest would be convicted. Secondly, in court the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof or the balance of probabilities:
  • preponderance of evidence - (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)
  • beyond a reasonable doubt - (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)
Source

I understand that QR's at the time stated there must be "no doubt whatsoever" or words to that effect. Clearly two, very different standards.

So, since you clearly accepted that there may be circumstances that may shed some doubt on the finding, ("The mysterious 'something' is of course always possible in any scenario."), and that the finding therefore does not meet the required standard of proof one assumes you will do the right and gracious thing and state unequivocally that the finding should be reversed... I'm not going to be holding my breath for this...

Would you please explain the description of pilot's anatomy postulated in your previous post? Quite rivetting...............
It's becoming clear from the "apostrophe incident", your misunderstanding of one of the most basic tenets of the legal system that my proposition is quite appropriate in your case. I'll try to make it clear without being vulgar... Head, rectum... Go!!!
Airborne Aircrew is offline