Reasonable doubts in self defense cases
I have already got more than enough things on my plate and do not need to add to it a discussion related to the subject of criminal law. But every now and then I come back to wonder and look for an answer about how the beyond a reasonable doubt proof requirement is applied in self defense cases. If X kills or injures Y and then claims a self defense how is it convincing that X can make his case of self defense by simply casting a doubt at the case of his action not being in self defense? It even seems that the acceptable level of doubt is the same had the case been about whether X killed or injured Y or not. If we start from the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and apply it on both X and Y then making a reasonable doubt sufficient to make X gets away with killing or injuring Y means incriminating Y based on a mere reasonable doubt. In other words the same level of proof that is required against incriminating X becomes sufficient to incriminating Y .
Beauty variation with makeup
Some seem to explain whenever they find a big degree of variation of beauty between a picture of a woman without makeup in comparison with pictures of the same woman with makeup as being totally the result of applying that makeup. That is clearly wrong in my opinion. Whatever cannot be explained with a reason as being the result of that makeup is not for some magic reason the result of that makeup. Beyond that level, any variation in beauty is the result of the woman using her face differently. In other words, the process of applying the makeup not the result of that application is what may lead a woman to assume a different look that is the reason behind that difference in beauty.
Today I bought an inversion table. Being originally from Saddam’s Iraq, who would have thought that one day I will be paying to have myself hanged upside down from my feet.
Is this journalism?
Earlier this week while watching the CBS morning show I saw Charlie Rose commenting on his interview with the dictator of Syria. During that he added something that I never heard before. He said that the father dictator (Hafez Al Assad) of this dictator also used chemical weapons on Hama. I don’t know from where he brought that. I have heard talk about a massacre in Hama since a long time ago but never heard any thing about chemical weapons used. Dictators with armies with heavy weapon machinery generally ,if ever, do not need to use chemical weapons to fight a resistance inside. As much as such a dictator want to be even more criminal than he already is and do not fear the outside world powers then it is very difficult to imagine that he won’t be able to defeat any resistance. The only real danger on a dictator absent the effect of the factors mentioned above is the military turning against him or a fighting split in that military. I think that any use of chemical weapons here by the Syrian dictator was for other purposes than a need to defeat the resistance. There is no indication that his dictator father had any of these purposes when he did the massacre in Hama. Clearly that does not make the father even an inch closer to not being the criminal dictator he was but you still can not throw something in just because you liked that.