Re: Gun Violence Archive

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.