Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: !Jones <x@y.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Violence Archive
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:22:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <lkhu3khjvaoqv3op320lfo23i8kg16jf0f@4ax.com>
References: <2a9m3khpv48hg31mpej28jqhpkvgu23bl1@4ax.com> <1oI_P.66275$S_65.45789@fx48.iad> <40nm3kle3tb9gf6ncbu5ikkn8qlf7bgcac@4ax.com> <EEE%P.604846$qmJf.55418@fx16.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 21:22:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8613aa07d8e58a29ded36df83941d22";
	logging-data="240508"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PFk8HfqQq947mEADLp1p7"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/3Up74hO+I38AiDC7D3WXrKwcxo=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548

>On 5/31/2025 1:58 PM, !Jones wrote:
>>> You falsify the documents to get the results you want.
>> 
>> Not guilty!  This is the only document we have at the moment; I have
>> not offered any interpretation whatsoever, save to say that, if all
>> there is to it is a media story, that isn't enough to cause me to
>> reject the null hypothesis.
>> 
>>> https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/armed-civilian-kills-teen-suspect-downtown-seattle-shooting/281-5f9b926f-7561-4e12-8cee-2280bb6c7ee6
>> 
>> That "null hypothesis" stuff is just a high falutin' way of saying
>> "burden of proof".  In a criminal case, the null hypothesis is not
>> guilty; the jury must reject this.
>> 
>> Union & First Ave... as *down* as "downtown" Seattle gets.  It could
>> just as easily ben a dope deal gone south.  Likely we'll never know.
>> If I cared, I'd order a copy of the police report, but usually, it
>> will contain little beyond what they release.  If that explicitly says
>> that it was "self defense", then I'll buy it... otherwise, it's just
>> another shoot-out on the street.
>> 
>> There isn't enough evidence to call it self defense.
>
>Personal testimony is explicitly accepted under the Federal
>and every state Rules of Evidence.

Thank you, sir!  I cannot agree more.  Furthermore, I agree that it
should be thus.

In general, virtually all modern venues have four broad tests:
allowable evidence must be relevant, material, authentic and not
privileged.  An article published in a news medium would fail the
authenticity test, unless the question were: what did the Seattle Post
Intelligencer say?  In that case, it would fail the material test
because what the newspaper says doesn't matter.

Point being: an article in the newspaper to the effect that, "Just
Wondering reported blah, [blah]," simply doesn't count as personal
testimony.  If I told a news reporter: "I saw Just Wondering commit an
abomination," would you consider the story published in the newspaper
to be "evidence"?

But, thank you for sharing your thoughts.