hijack from Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

"Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?"

No because police departments support the fiat system, which uses a system of racketeering and extortion to support it; the legal system engages in antisocial behavior by falsely claiming verdicts against persons while threatening people with force if they do not support the legal system's system of sophistry; no one has the expertise to claim a defendant is guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable with any accuracy whatsoever.

[iNow]

Agenda and soap boxing much?

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

 no one has the expertise to claim a defendant is guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable with any accuracy whatsoever.

Bullshit.

 

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

On 6/9/2021 at 4:22 PM, beecee said:

Bullshit.

 

well, take a look at Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 on expert testimony from the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. No one has absolution in a domain of ¨knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.¨

 

When a judge qualifies someone as an ¨expert," the judge is engaging in sophistry. How can the judge be so experienced in his or her opinion to qualify someone as an expert? The judge cannot.

 

sources:

1) uscode.house.gov <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/title28a/node218/article7&edition=prelim> Accessed: June 20th, 2021

 

As an aside, personally, I think it would be great for kids to learn science from this website. Cursing is bad and best hoped for such expletives to be put aside. But, then again, my expertise is not absolute on the word presented nor its meaning.

 

Also, admin, I am having difficulty removing formatting on text. One more forum issue. As a note, I might not be back for a while.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

One more forum issue. 

The issue that I see the most obvious, brought about by the silly all  inclusive nature of your statements, is that you have some sort of extreme political agenda.

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

On 6/20/2021 at 4:01 PM, beecee said:

The issue that I see the most obvious, brought about by the silly all  inclusive nature of your statements, is that you have some sort of extreme political agenda.

What would that be?

Also, it appears you have failed to pick apart my argument and provided detailed refutations. From what I have observed, it appears that you have engaged in a red herring and an ad hominem. I am not interested in arguing in circles with you. I was on onlinephilosophyclub.com and communicated various ideas in relation to the legal system. It appeared that the issue of "epistemological anarchism" (a concept I learned from Wikipedia) came up, whereby I eventually figured out that all legal cases should be ending in a mistrial.

 

With the usage of term "accuracy," it may inferred that I am referring also to "validity."

In argumentation, the reasonableness of a claim is related to whether or not it is sound and valid. However, if an individual lacks absolution in any domain of expertise to ensure the validity and soundness of a claim, then it might be interpreted that the "validity" of a claim is left upon falsification.

 

Here is a paragraph from an essay I have typed in relation to standards of proof:

 

Quote

 

Strawman & Judges

     Judges claim their opinion is valid by law because it has met some standard of proof as required by law, whereby it is also an opinion rather than a fact that some standard of proof has been met because they seek to shift the blame for their sophistry to a strawman (which is that their opinion is valid by law because it has met some standard of proof as required by law). They seek to shift the blame for their sophistry to a strawman because they fear having to give a remedy if caught for their sophistry. They fear having to give a remedy if caught for their sophistry because based on observational learning, that is what they have come to expect. ["Sophistry" ≈ Freudian monsterism]. Based on observational learning, that is what they have come to expect because the law says (such as the Illinois Constitution says) that for any wrong, a remedy is to be given. The law says (such as the Illinois Constitution says) that for any wrong, a remedy is to be given because that's what legislation put forward. That's what legislation put forward because that's what the republic pushed for legislation to do.

 

 

Police claim they have met the standard of proof known as probable cause in various situations. They also claim to have met a standard known as "reasonable suspicion." Both of those claims are false claims. Do you think it is possible for a police officer to have totality of the facts and circumstances in relation to a perceived crime in order to claim something as a crime? If so, why would there be a need for due process, a hearing, a tribunal, etc.? There wouldn't be such a need. Otherwise, such need in itself would be considered racketeering.

 

It appears to me that you have some sort of extreme political agenda, such as continuing the support of racketeering and extortion. Also, presuming your username is not your real name, I'm under the impression that you're suffering from some delusional disorder, categorically some form of dissociative identity disorder, thus preventing you from making logical sense out of things.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Enough of this nonsense 

Your opinions about what the legal system should be are not a substitute for facts, and you’re permitted to attack arguments, not people.