|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT |
That cannot happen in an American court. It is totally comprehensible for
everyone but lawyers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
| Lots around, they get called experts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
<blockquote>Instruction 1
Do not try to second guess the law. You MUST only use the judges
descriptions of the law not what you think you know.</blockquote>
Right. I must use only the judge's description of the law. Not what I think I
know/understand *based* on that description.
Uhh.... How's that work again?
As someone else has pointed out here, in communication failure to provide
language the receiving person correctly understands is a failure on the
*sending* party. Misunderstandings most often arise when the *receiving* party
incorrectly believes that they *do* understand what the sending party meant.
Thus, armed with an incorrect understanding which they believe to be correct,
they proceed along unaware that they need any clarification.
<blockquote>Instruction 2
You MUST consider each question on this form in detail and in
turn.</blockquote>
So, I can't move on to section 2 until I've answered all 40 questions in section
1? Even though they're unrelated and we're getting bogged down debating the
answer to 1.12. Even though it might be more productive to move on and come
back later when people have had the opportunity to let things percolate a bit?
We should *force* people to work in an unnatural, often counter-productive
manner, which won't clear up any misunderstandings anyway?
<blockquote>Instruction 3
Only evidence presented in court counts, if any juror tries to persuade the
rest of you he knows better, ignore him completely, he is a
fool.</blockquote>
Ok, so once a juror is trying to make a case for his understanding of the issues
and evidence, he's a fool.
The only way for a jury to progress in that case is for them to hold blind vote
after blind vote, refusing steadfastly to discuss the evidence *AT ALL*.
What we really have here is someone who, not being used to interviewing, is
answering questions off the cuff, with imprecise language. Why? Because he's
being asked imprecise questions, and he very likely doesn't has no earthly idea
that there's a bunch of nattering geeks nit-picking every word he uses in an
effort to make him sound like an idiot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Sorry about that last post. I forgot to switch to 'HTML Formatted' after I
added the blockquote tags.
Instruction 1
Do not try to second guess
the law. You MUST only use the judges
descriptions of the law not what you think
you know.
Right. I must use only the judge's description of the
law. Not what I think I
know/understand *based* on that description.
Uhh....
How's that work again?
As someone else has pointed out here, in communication
failure to provide
language the receiving person correctly understands is a
failure on the
*sending* party. Misunderstandings most often arise when the
*receiving* party
incorrectly believes that they *do* understand what the
sending party meant.
Thus, armed with an incorrect understanding which they
believe to be correct,
they proceed along unaware that they need any
clarification.
Instruction 2
You MUST consider each question on
this form in detail and in
turn.
So, I can't move on to section 2
until I've answered all 40 questions in section
1? Even though they're unrelated
and we're getting bogged down debating the
answer to 1.12. Even though it might
be more productive to move on and come
back later when people have had the
opportunity to let things percolate a bit?
We should *force* people to work in
an unnatural, often counter-productive
manner, which won't clear up any
misunderstandings anyway?
Instruction 3
Only evidence presented in
court counts, if any juror tries to persuade the
rest of you he knows better,
ignore him completely, he is a
fool.
Ok, so once a juror is trying
to make a case for his understanding of the issues
and evidence, he's a
fool.
The only way for a jury to progress in that case is for them to hold
blind vote
after blind vote, refusing steadfastly to discuss the evidence *AT
ALL*.
What we really have here is someone who, not being used to interviewing,
is
answering questions off the cuff, with imprecise language. Why? Because
he's
being asked imprecise questions, and he very likely doesn't has no earthly
idea
that there's a bunch of nattering geeks nit-picking every word he uses in
an
effort to make him sound like an idiot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
