Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: How Do We Know?
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:44:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <9p3t2jlne8jb76men6kro4k3cflvndamte@4ax.com>
References: <cm8q2jtl07i443hrnb2us5og9k59c12r55@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 20:44:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5739fd8aa171228990f0d6eb3cc3a1ba";
	logging-data="1277149"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1937ZacK8jggvJdNKnqKJwu"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uuAOb6G6XlFslJVLF3dZBPJ7MR4=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Bytes: 5951

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:02:27 +0200, in talk.politics.guns D
<nospam@example.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 11:08:48 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" ><x@y.com> wrote:
>
>>Definition:
>>A *finder of fact* shall be defined as an impartial panel of one or
>>more persons designated by the legislative process and sworn under
>>oath of office to appraise and publish as a public record the facts
>>underlying a particular event or legal matter.  A finder of fact
>>employs the scientific method wherein the panel assumes the *null
>>hypothesis* (i.e.: that the assertion under trial is false), gathers
>>evidence, weighs and interprets the evidence, and, based on the
>>evidence, either rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis.
>>
>>When a finder of fact tries and fails to reject the null hypothesis,
>>the failure to reject the null hypothesis in no way affirms the null
>>hypothesis as fact.  The null hypothesis is never affirmed, only
>>rejected or not rejected.  (In a criminal trial, the innocence of the
>>accused is the null hypothesis; a "not guilty" finding does *not*
>>equal "innocent".)
>>
>>Points:
>>--> Impartial
>>--> Legislatively Designated
>>--> Sworn Oath of Office
>>--> Published Findings
>>--> Scientific Method
>>
>>Examples of Finders of Fact: 
>>
>>--> In a jury trial: the jury is the finder of fact that decides the
>>outcome of the case at hand.
>>
>>--> In a bench trial: the judge is the finder of fact that decides
>>what really happened. 
>>
>>--> In an official investigation: an agent or committee may be
>>appointed to determine the facts.
>>--> A medical examiner filling out a death certificate is acting as a
>>finder of fact.
>>
>>--> A law enforcement officer writing up the result of an
>>investigation is a finder of fact.
>>
>>Non-Examples of Finders of Fact: 
>>
>>--> Articles and Editorials in the News Media; not even considered as
>>evidence of fact.
>>
>>--> Grand Jury Proceedings; reliable information, but their findings
>>are secret.
>>
>>--> Academic (or other) Studies; an academic study might be considered
>>as evidence; however, in and of itself, does not find fact.
>>
>>--> Opinion Surveys, Polls, Popularity Contests.
>>
>>--> Historical Precedent.
>
>
>Ahh yes "fact checkers" so much nonsense. Facts work in the realm of 
>science along with the scientific method, _over time_.
>
>The idea that we will have a panel that decides what is true, instantly, 
>especially in such fields as individual values, politics, culture, is 
>naive and laughable.
>
>In terms of values, which we use to interpret events, ideas, ideologies 
>etc. philosophy has not managed to reach a conclusion in 3000 years. Paid 
>ideologues will of course not make a better job of it.

Yes, you raise some valid points; however, you are still confusing
*facts* with the more esoteric ideas such as truth, values, human
ideals, ideologies, and theology.  One philosopher writes: "Facts go
beyond theories. While truth may be based on fact, it is subjective
because it includes the element of belief. It may not be indisputable;
but it is grounded in acceptance (or lack of it). A fact does not have
to be believed for it to exist; it exists independent of whether or
not we choose to accept it." (Azam, 2022)

The facts I am discussing are arbitrary facts:

The Medical Examiner's Report places the time of death at 2330 on Jan
20, 2021 and the cause of death as exsanguination due to being struck
by a vehicle.  This is now a fact.

The police report states that a vehicle driven by Mr. John Doe failed
to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk on <date/time> and hit the
pedestrian.  *This*, also, is now a fact.

A jury finds Mr. Doe guilty of a negligent homicide.  Yet another
fact.

Conversely: The jury returns not guilty.  Philosophically, he is
innocent, I suppose; however, there is no finding of fact to that
effect.  People are born innocent and remain thus until a finder of
fact states otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------

So, what's the point of this discussion?

There has never been a "defensive gun use" documented by a finding of
fact.  This is entirely different from someone stating a belief on a
survey.  It is different from a "no-bill" by a grand jury.  If a
person claims the affirmative defense of "self defense" and is
subsequently found "not guilty", that is not a finding of fact.

A fact, as used here, is different from truth.  There probably are a
few instances of self defense by civilians using personal firearms (I
would be very surprised were there not), but we have no way of
quantifying their occurrences because we're counting people's beliefs.

Thus, where "proven" means documented by a finding of fact, there are
zero proven instances of self defense by civilians using personal
firearms in the US.