The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Don't disagree, but the wanting isn't the same as being
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Hope that you don't use that kind of language in the court - that will probably make your clients a bit pissed when they are put in jail.
You argue that people just can tell their part of the story at court, and that is very nice. Only problem is how the jury will weight it. Will they consider the incriminating parts (that may be innocent) from the police witness more value than the testimony from the accused that he couldn't have done it ?
No offense, but you don't have KH potential, so please don't try to act as him.
No client would go to jail for my language in court.
I don't argue anything here. I explain to you why police testimony that a defendant made a statement favorable to his cause isn't admissible. Wasn't the perceived unfairness of letting the officer testify to your harmful statements, but not your helpful ones, the root of your concern? Jury weight is an entirely different question, and as che said, not one susceptible to a single, blanket answer.
I've consciously never shown my pretentious ******* side here, but I assure you it's substantial. Besides, that was meant as a joke.
As an ADA, I will dismiss a case even after an indictment if the defendant has a convincing defense, I have that authority, thankfully. Then again, I deal exclusively with white collar crimes, primarily healthcare fraud and spin-offs (money laundering/organized criminal activity etc), where the cases move very slowly and can be fully fleshed out (I have a 2007 indictment that might go to trial later this month, for example.
If the defendant will talk to me prior to indictment I can cut through a lot of the bs, and at a minimum am more likely to cut a break in sentencing (deferred adjudication for small cases, probation for larger ones) depending on how forthcoming the person is. For example, in May I closed a year-old, multi-million dollar dental fraud investigation after the facts were fleshed out through the defendant's explanation and further witness interviews. It did did not go over well with my investigator, but once I got involved, it was clear a conviction was unlikely (I referred the case for civil recoupment). OTOH, I also recently interrogated (along with my investigator of course) a guy indicted on 1st degree money laundering which was a complete waste of time, which I will remember come trial time if he doesn't plead (the explanations given on tape for his actions are quite hilarious)
Sorry BlackCat, but Solomwi is absolutely right. A statement that "X said something that is in X's favor" is hearsay (unless other exceptions apply) and "X said something that would hurt X" is not. That's the law. I remember when my dad was studying for the bar, a decade and something ago, he had this great study software that involved guessing if a statement was hearsay, and if not, why (what exception and/or 'not hearsay' rule applied). I got to be pretty good at it, during one summer...
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Jury weight is an entirely different question, and as che said, not one susceptible to a single, blanket answer.
I was led to understand at one point, police corruption and behavior in New Orleans was so bad, that the police were presumed by juries to be lying onless backed up by evidence.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
I was led to understand at one point, police corruption and behavior in New Orleans was so bad, that the police were presumed by juries to be lying onless backed up by evidence.
Haven't heard that specifically (that I remember), but it wouldn't surprise me. About ten years ago, I worked for a pretty big paving contractor. Obviously, every branch's biggest customer was the state it was located in. The company map showed a presence in every state from Texas east and Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia south... except Louisiana. I was told it was an intentional hole in the map, basically because of the corruption.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
No client would go to jail for my language in court.
That was supposed to be a joke
I don't argue anything here. I explain to you why police testimony that a defendant made a statement favorable to his cause isn't admissible. Wasn't the perceived unfairness of letting the officer testify to your harmful statements, but not your helpful ones, the root of your concern? Jury weight is an entirely different question, and as che said, not one susceptible to a single, blanket answer.
I have no problem with your explanation, it quite clear and explains the habit of american procedure. I simply find it strange. I have a colleague that is a jury member (our jury system is a bit different than yours) that I will ask about danish treatment of such.
I've consciously never shown my pretentious ******* side here, but I assure you it's substantial. Besides, that was meant as a joke.
Well, I have to stoop to that too sometimes, but it's rarely nessecary
@snoopy369 : I'm quite aware of the fact that Solomwi is right, I just find it strange and I'm not sure it would be allowed in a danish court.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I have no problem with your explanation, it quite clear and explains the habit of american procedure. I simply find it strange. I have a colleague that is a jury member (our jury system is a bit different than yours) that I will ask about danish treatment of such.
Well, I have to stoop to that too sometimes, but it's rarely nessecary
@snoopy369 : I'm quite aware of the fact that Solomwi is right, I just find it strange and I'm not sure it would be allowed in a danish court.
Fair enough. Given that this all started with you being baffled at a fairly mundane aspect of our court system, I hope I can be forgiven for not recognizing the joke.
I'm interested, though, in the opposite question, if it turns out that Danish courts handle the same thing differently. I'm interested to see what you find out. As long as you're clear enough now to understand why, even if not agreeing with it, my work is done.
Tweet
Comment