10-09-2024, 01:17 AM
This post was last modified 10-09-2024, 01:18 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
My main problem with that is that I have little confidence in the fidelity of "shared" documentation by the authority in question.
I have - when speaking to people - often held one finger up, never once meaning it be be some kind of cryptic signal. It hardly makes a person dangerous. But it is essential to "making a case" appear solid.
What I would be more convinced by is physical evidence that confirms intent.
"Allegations" are cheap, and very easy to use. Even 'confession' is a form of allegation.
It's why we have juries and judges, not prosecutors or law enforcement, to definitively affirm guilt, and the "to what" is a matter of some trust... trust, which is never abused, right? They implicitly promise.
I have - when speaking to people - often held one finger up, never once meaning it be be some kind of cryptic signal. It hardly makes a person dangerous. But it is essential to "making a case" appear solid.
What I would be more convinced by is physical evidence that confirms intent.
"Allegations" are cheap, and very easy to use. Even 'confession' is a form of allegation.
It's why we have juries and judges, not prosecutors or law enforcement, to definitively affirm guilt, and the "to what" is a matter of some trust... trust, which is never abused, right? They implicitly promise.
