41–50 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those claims are all in principle consistent with each other?
Yeah, I am confused as well. Those three claims are logically consistent. They may be in poor taste but they don't fit kettle logic as far as I understand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'permissible' isn't quite the point ... if it makes the jury think you're lying, maybe it isn't the best strategy.
1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief whether either side is lying. 2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them otherwise.
The defence is expressly prohibited from lying. Lawyers have a so called duty of candor [1] outlining this. Defendants testify under oath to make this clear to them. Defence attorneys must disclose to the court if their client lies to the court (and they can't convince their client to voluntarily disclose it instead) [2].
That doesn't mean people are expected to take defendants at their word during trial, juries are allowed to decide they think that someone was lying, but they aren't expected to lie.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/duty-of-candor/
[2] https://www.eiglarshlaw.com/when-clients-liewhat-must-you-do...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading Using multiple logically inconsistent defenses is generally allowed in the US.
When you think about it, it'd really suck to be failing to prove what is in fact your complete innocence and not be able to advance other defenses that could at least get you a reduced sentence (or even acquitted—correct outcome, wrong reason).
On the other hand, I've seen a ton of "I didn't do x, and even if I did do X it was acceptable because Y" where Y was the worse crime... that somehow still succeeded as a defense. Thankfully not in a court of law, but public opinion is weird.
There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"
What would that be in programmer speak? The intern had no write access to the production database, he didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it coming?
There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"
What would that be in programmer speak? The intern had no write access to the production database, he didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it coming?
There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"
What would that be in programmer speak? The intern had no write access to the production database, he didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it coming?
void *p = NULL;
int i = *p / 0;Oh gosh, I have stories about this sort of logic from my time in American high school and college competitive debate. Usually, the affirmative team is proposing a plan that implements a resolution, and the negative team has to present arguments which convince the judge that either the plan, or the whole resolution is a bad idea. A trivial example of the kind of "Kettle" logic that we had to deal with on the affirmati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I am confused as well. Those three claims are logically consistent. They may be in poor taste but they don't fit kettle logic as far as I understand.
This line is actually used in one of the linked articles[1], "Argument in the alternative", which apparently does not constitute kettle logic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
- I didn't do it.
- (I did it, but) nobody saw me do it.
- (You saw me do it, but) you can't prove anything.
The statements alone, not considering the perspective of the speaker in parentheses, don't strictly contradict each other, but the speaker contradicts himself. He's Bart Simpson; he definitely did it and he would definitely lie about it.
There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"