Re: Deny SCO to use my code?

From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 12/05/03 

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:50:23 GMT

David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> "P.T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> news:sjqnqb.se6.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
>
> > I hope you are being deliberately dense, I really do, because you are
> > continuing an inane blather that just doesn't make any sense at all. Yes,
> > people really do take things intending not to return them. Yes, people
> > really cannot demonstrate that they intended to return them.
>
> Okay, you're beyond hope. I shall stop trying to educate you.

In what way does my paragraph differ from yours? It contains exactly
the same sentence structure, and therefore exactly the same "logic".
The *only* place in which it differs is in the assertions it makes (the
porpositional atoms in its terms), which are diametrically opposed to
yours, by virtue of the reversal of a pair of your "not"s. Therefore if
you think this paragraph has no merit and yours has merit, then you can
only do so on the basis of its atomic assertions, not on the basis of
its structural logic.

If that is the case, then your paragraph had as semantics only the base
assertions in it, and the extra verbiage added nothing, and was just
there in order to insult.

So let's just assume that you decided to make some assertions, and not
back them up with any reasoning, shall we?

> > In other words, show me a crook who has got off by claiming that he was
> > going to take it back. I would not believe it for one millisecond.
> > People who take things without consent and without seeking permission
> > generally do not do so because they intend to take it back.
>
> Okay, first you challenge me to show you a single counter-example, then
> you say that what you're claiming is only "generally" true. If it's only

Notice that I said "a crook". Not "anyone". That bollixes whatever your
paragraph here wishes to say.

> generally true, there would be hundreds of counter examples. Of course,
> there are. Lack of intent to permanently keep the property is a common, and
> often successful, defense against a theft charge. Really.

But unfortunately for you it's disqualified as a counterexample as
stated, because I asked you for a crook, not an innocent person, who has
got off by claiming that feeble excuse. I.e. you have to name a
bankrobber who got off at the Old Bailey by claiming that he "meant to
take the stuff back, sometime".

> The prosecution needs to prove the intent to permanently keep beyond a
> reasonable doubt. So the defense need only convince the jurors that it's
> reasonably possible that the accused intended to return the property alleged
> stolen.

Which is pretty damn difficult since no crook intends to take the stuff
back at all, so they would have to convince them of the reasonableness
of a falsehood.

> Here's a great example:
> http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/appeals/opinions/20030924/02-1033.doc

> "Proof that Morris acted with the specific purpose of permanently depriving
> Gonzalez of his truck requires a determination of what Morris was thinking
> when the act was done.

Exactly so, and intent is strictly unprovable - one can merely make an
estimate of its likelihood. That's what they call a "determination" (I
would call that a "judgement") here.

> Proof of such intent is seldom accomplished with
> direct evidence.

Given that we possess neither a time machine nor a telepathy machine,
the evidence would *have* to be indirect.

> See State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Iowa 1989).
> Therefore, the facts and circumstances surrounding the act, as well as any
> reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts and circumstances, may be
> relied upon to ascertain Morris's intent.

Exactly so. They have to make a judgement as to his intent.

> See State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d
> 557, 562 (Iowa 1995). Accordingly, we examine the record for facts and
> circumstances that would support an inference Morris intended to more than
> temporarily take possession of the truck."

He took it. That in itself constitutes a presumed intent to take the
truck *permanently*, in the absence of any other evidence. If Morris or
whoever wants to argue that he meant to return it, he has to offer such
other evidence, in order to show that it was advantageous to him to
return the truck (such as the fact that the truck owner has a shotgun
and knows where he lives) instead of keep it.

> "The court noted the mere fact Schminkey took the pickup without the owner's
> consent does not give rise to an inference that he intended to permanently

Oh yes it does, in the absence of any evidence offered to the contrary!
The court they refer to is barmy if it thinks that when an object moves,
it will return of its own accord. Not at all! It stays put, which is
not in its owners possession. It needs a force to move it back, and
forces need evidence to persuade a jury of their existence.

> deprive the owner of the vehicle. Id. at 791. The same analysis should
> apply here, and thus we must look for other facts or circumstances
> indicating Morris's intent in taking the truck."

The analysis of the court is false. An object which has been taken
cannot be deemed to be likely to return to its owner of its own accord,
because physics says it requires an impulsive force. That requires
energy. That requires an investment of energy by the being who took it.
That requires, on the part of a sapient being, a reason to expend such
energy. Lacking evidence for such a reason, one would have to presume
that the truck will stay put with its new owner.

> But in any event, your argument is idiotic even if there was not a
> single case wherein a person successfully argued that they didn't intend to
> keep the items alleged stolen. Even if juries were permitted to conclusively
> infer intent to keep merely from the fact of taking, that wouldn't change

Of course they are allowed to, because taking an object implies that
you want it, which implies that you have a reason for taking it, which
implies that you have a reason for not giving it back (as though you
needed one ...). This is elementary bayesian logic.

> the fact that intent to keep permanently is an element of the offense. Any
> legal dictionary will tell you that intent to permanently retain the
> property is an element of theft. Why you would argue that it isn't is
> incomprehensible.

I don't argue that it isn't. Why you think that I don't is
incomprehensible. What are you, an idiot?

> I wish I had more time and patience to dissect all of your other errors.

That's doubtful.

Peter

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Toad is the Epitome of Stink Bombs
    ... The question is, if this so called evidence actally exists, will it be ... "The question may be asked what was the reason or motive for the ... motive need be proven by the prosecution, and circumstantial evidence ... and reject that interpretation which points to ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... > ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD". ... > cannot imagine trying to live on a savannah without at least an atlatl. ... >> back to quadrupedalism, ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... and even early humans in treeless ... "There is no such thing as negative evidence retard." ... "IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, ... parsimonious reason for all the apiths bones in the caves since leopard ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)