 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal.
That is back at this source: The Grand Jury
I don't know if anyone is reading this, how could I?
I do think it is vitally important to the human species to understand the messages offered in these historical records.
My reading of all this information is forming competitive challenges in my mind and I am working at meeting those challenges, such as might occur in a question an answer session.
Question:
What is the difference between maintaining peaceful coexistence and instead a willful choice is made by someone to resort to violence (which also, then, invents the concept of "threat of violence" as a method of control used by one person upon another person)?
Answer:
The difference is such that maintaining peace requires an effective method by which the choice to resort to violence is no longer profitable in the mind of anyone contemplating such a choice.
Question:
What does the above Q and A session have to do with the quote?
"Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal."
Answer:
At some point those who gain authority are faced with a decision to unleash the dogs of war, and those decisions are then compared competitively by other people who gain authority into the similar situations.
Keep in mind the following:
Authority is only competitive when it is agreed upon as being authority, and when it is false authority is when deception, threat of violence, and violence is required in order for it to be "authority"?
In other words, keep in mind the concept of who willfully "throws the first stone." and once that fact is discovered by anyone, then anyone knows who has willfully decided to end Liberty, end Peace, in that situation.
Who willfully decides to "let loose the dogs of war" against someone who does not deserve, in any way, such punishment?
In other words, true authority cannot be a criminal who perpetrates crimes upon innocent people for fun and profit, because that is the definition of crime, so that would be a true authority of crime demonstrated by a criminal in fact.
True authority of defense of Liberty, or true authority of defense of the innocent, over time, has become an understanding determined by human beings as a POWER that is external to human beings because humans are prone to so much error.
If true authority of defense of Liberty (defense of the innocent) is external to human beings because of human error, then those human beings who realize this fact earn, by that realization, a measure of true authority.
I will not cast the first stone, we say, because I have, at least, recognized that true authority cannot be invented by, produced by, and maintained by human beings, because human beings are so very obviously prone to human error.
What then is the next logical, reasonable, step?
So...so much confusion over words, and a call back to simpler meanings may help.
Victim, as far as victim is concerned, is a victim. Victim, as far as victim is concerned, knows who is causing injury to victim.
Victim is then looking for help in defense against criminal, or victim takes matters into his own hands, and victim solves the criminal problem in his or her own way.
How does that work, over time?
"Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal."
Many victims are not powerful enough to solve their own crime problems, and many who can solve their own crime problems decide to get help because "it is the right thing to do" according to human reason, human logic, human recognition that true authority does not exist in human form as one person claiming to be the authority over everyone else, on and on.
So help in solving the criminal problem is realized as some form of process that becomes what it is, over time, and the process only works if it works the same way for everyone, whereby no one is "above" the law, no one is afforded the power to torture and murder at will with impunity because someone makes the claim that they alone are the true authority, and they alone get to torture and murder at will, because they say that they have that authority, because they say that they are, in their own minds, the true authority.
I may confuse here as I use terms such as "cast the first stone" and "torture and murder with impunity" when my words choices may be more effective if I can find words that precisely identify the actual people who are the actual criminal power.
The word criminal means the same thing as those who willfully decide to "cast the first stone" upon the innocent, and the word criminal means the same thing as those who willfully "torture and murder with impunity" the innocent because they say that they are the lawful authority that can lawfully torture and murder with impunity.
"Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal."
Failure is realized when innocent people continue to be injured by criminals despite the effort to realize and then address the crime problem.
When those in power are criminals, what is going to be their interest in solving the crime problem?