Ecuador: UK Threatens to Raid Embassy

[The UK in Exile]

no it doesn't.

Do you investigate everyone for everything that happens to you?

?

[Person012345]

Do you investigate everyone for everything that happens to you?

?

Lets say you find bird poop on your car. You presume that a bird pooped on your car. You don't presume that the dude over there planted it. Therefore you don't investigate said dude. You presume him innocent, even though you can't know this for sure, and therefore you have no reason to investigate him for it. If you truly presume innocence, then you have no reason to spend resources investigating someone.

Luckily the police don't actually work entirely on the principal of presumed innocence. It's more of a jury thing.

[The UK in Exile]

?

Lets say you find bird poop on your car. You presume that a bird pooped on your car. You don't presume that the dude over there planted it. Therefore you don't investigate said dude. You presume him innocent, even though you can't know this for sure, and therefore you have no reason to investigate him for it. If you truly presume innocence, then you have no reason to spend resources investigating someone.

Luckily the police don't actually work entirely on the principal of presumed innocence. It's more of a jury thing.

sooo many logical flaws.

[Nadkor]

The difference between "innocent" and "presumed innocent" is huge. One means that a person did not commit the crime, full stop. The other means that we're going to assume that the person did not commit the crime until the prosecution can prove that they did. "Not guilty" does not mean that you did not commit the crime. It means that you were not found guilty of committing the crime. There are plenty of people who commit crimes and get off in court. The fact that a court did not find them guilty (note: the court did not find them innocent, either) does not mean that they did not commit the crime.

That's what I mean. If he did it he did it, if he didn't he didn't. That's a truism.

This doesn't follow.

Take, for example, Anders Breivik. Everybody in that courtroom, indeed everybody familiar with the story, knows that he did what he is accused of doing. He is not innocent. He did it; he is guilty. The court, however, will presume that he is innocent until the prosecution presents their evidence and can prove that he did it. There is a huge difference. Breivik is not innocent, but he is presumed innocent by the court.

The presumption of innocence (you will note that it is called the presumption of innocence) is not a truism. It accurately describes how a fair criminal justice system operates. And "presumed innocent" is not the same as "innocent".

No. If everyone knows he did it then they quite obviously aren't presuming him innocent. They just aren't, even if they should be. And if they are, they don't know he did it and saying that's he's innocent until proven guilty is fine - they would indeed be presuming he is innocent and thus are justified in saying that he is innocent. They might be wrong, but that's a possibility in every case and comes back to the truism - if he did it he did it. We know that. But presuming his innocence he must be treated in every way as if he is innocent.

In presuming that the accused is innocent they would be justifying in saying that he is presumed innocent. They would not be justified in saying that he is innocent. You don't understand how courts work. They do not just sit about repeating "if he did it he did it". If Breivik pleaded not guilty then he would be found not guilty if the prosecution were unable to present sufficient evidence to prove his guilt, even though we all know that he did what he is accused of. That is what presumption of innocence means. It does not mean "if he did it he did it" and it does not mean that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Judges are pretty good at setting aside what they previously know about a case (in this case knowing, just as everyone else does, that Breivik did it) and dealing solely with the evidence presented before them. It's kind of their job, and those that can't actually do it tend to get found out pretty quickly. The judge in the Breivik case will know that he did it. He will also know that unless the prosecution makes their case properly he will have to find Breivik not guilty - this would not mean that he is innocent, but that he was not proven guilty. That is what the presumption of innocence means.

It means that the prosecution has to prove guilt, even when everyone knows that the accused committed the crime. It does not mean "if he did it he did it".

[Person012345]

Don't they have juries in norway?

Anyway, this discussion is off topic, and I'm not really sure it's going anywhere, so I'll concede.

[The UK in Exile]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

[Person012345]

We should nuke the embassy.

[Nadkor]

Don't they have juries in norway?.

In their lagmannsrett (court of appeal). Not in the court of first instance (the district court, or tingrett), where Breivik was being tried.

[Nadkor]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Well, he reckons that he's going to make a statement outside the embassy on Sunday, so I guess we'll wait and see what happens.

[Nadkor]

We should nuke the embassy.

An excellent plan with no potential negative outcomes whatsoever.

[The UK in Exile]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Well, he reckons that he's going to make a statement outside the embassy on Sunday, so I guess we'll wait and see what happens.

but I'm impatient NOW!

[The Archregimancy]

Well this is a change of tangent. Have we swapped absurdities about getting Assange out of the UK for philosophising about presumption of innocence?

He should be presumed innocent of fantasising about escaping from the embassy via a magic Ecuadorean stealth helicopter until proven guilty?

[Bears Armed]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

[Great Nepal]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Literally...
Pump smoke on Embassy from their ventilation system, secretly.
Everyone presumes fire and runs out.
Police grabs Assange as he gets out of Embassy.

...What could go wrong?

[Dumb Ideologies]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

Military drone bees that fire itching powder.

[The UK in Exile]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

still technically a violation.

the beauty of setting the building on fire is that the embassy is on the first floor. thus a stting a fire in the lobby respects the inviolability of the embassy.

sealing all of the windows and doors and filling the building with water however, has legs.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

still technically a violation.

the beauty of setting the building on fire is that the embassy is on the first floor. thus a stting a fire in the lobby respects the inviolability of the embassy.

sealing all of the windows and doors and filling the building with water however, has legs.

Why not fill it with custard?

[Herrebrugh]

War, war, war!/geopolitical schoolyard jargon

[Bears Armed]

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

still technically a violation.

Even if the bees are there because a bee-keeper says that they're seeking asylum?

[The Archregimancy]

yes, back to the point.

should the UK metaphorically smoke Assange out? or should they literally smoke Assange out?

Well, he reckons that he's going to make a statement outside the embassy on Sunday, so I guess we'll wait and see what happens.

I don't see how this is going to work.

The news sources I've read over this plan (since reading your post - see how NSG keeps me up to date!) state that Assange plans on making his statement "on the steps of the Ecuadorian Embassy" or "in front of the Ecuadorian embassy".

However, as I've detailed earlier in this thread, the embassy doesn't have its own steps, nor does it have its own front. The embassy consists of 12 rooms in a ground floor flat; said flat doesn't have its own direct exit. To leave the building Assange has to enter the communal lobby, which doesn't form part of the embassy.

The minute he leaves the embassy - not the building - he's subject to arrest.

British police have already been stationed in the lobby.

God forbid that I should detect the whiff of a dramatic publicity stunt somewhere in this news.

[Nadkor]

God forbid that I should detect the whiff of a dramatic publicity stunt somewhere in this news.

Julian Assange in a dramatic publicity stunt?

How dare you suggest such a thing!

[The Archregimancy]

God forbid that I should detect the whiff of a dramatic publicity stunt somewhere in this news.

Julian Assange in a dramatic publicity stunt?

How dare you suggest such a thing!

I know, I know... Silly me, suggesting such a thing. What was I thinking?

Maybe we could move on from absurd scenarios over helicopter rescues to absurd scenarios over how he's going to avoid arrest while making his statement.

Opening suggestion: Assange will exit the embassy handcuffed to the ambassador and/or other embassy staff.

[Nadkor]

He's going to send Lord Lucan out first, and in the resulting media frenzy quickly and quietly make his exit through a side door to a waiting helicopter, after which he will make his statement by loudspeaker while hovering directly over the Foreign Office.

[The Matthew Islands]

Why not introduce a large swarm of bees into the embassy?

^_^

still technically a violation.

What if we use bees imported from Ecuador?

[Nadkor]

He's going to send Lord Lucan out first, and in the resulting media frenzy quickly and quietly make his exit through a side door to a waiting helicopter, after which he will make his statement by loudspeaker while hovering directly over the Foreign Office.

I've decided that actually this is in no way possible.

Assange couldn't do anything quickly and quietly.