The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
In This, The End of All Things, I Come Out of Lurking
jonas:
--- Quote from: forumghost on January 10, 2018, 12:35:04 AM ---From how I understand it, they're two different things.
Ramps are something that murders you and runs around wearing you like a suit, Faerie Mantles are something that slowly mindrapes you into the shape it wants. Neither are the kind of thing that you want to invite to sunday brunch.
--- End quote ---
The spirit being the main component of the mantles vs soul being angelic is key, the greater force acts directly upon your will and conscious mind, where as Fae mantles all seem to overflow the underlying id making the subconscious overpower conscious will, as it did when Molly tried to say something too direct. The main difference is the layer of conscious ability the invading force has itself. Angelic forces being most sentient with Outsiders as Fearbringer are pure ego, only a mental perspective of overriding willpower that needs to collect to itself the disparate parts of those things that make a composite insider, body, spirit, soul, ect.
*I somehow got the feeling Jim's been reading people complaints about holes in his system as they see them from their perspective... and he wasn't any happier about them then I've been. So if I seem slightly defensive in insisting on seeing a pattern, it's because I DO, even if it's fan crack patterns, they still exist.
Kindler:
--- Quote from: jonas on January 10, 2018, 12:55:50 AM ---The spirit being the main component of the mantles vs soul being angelic is key, the greater force acts directly upon your will and conscious mind, where as Fae mantles all seem to overflow the underlying id making the subconscious overpower conscious will, as it did when Molly tried to say something too direct. The main difference is the layer of conscious ability the invading force has itself. Angelic forces being most sentient with Outsiders as Fearbringer are pure ego, only a mental perspective of overriding willpower that needs to collect to itself the disparate parts of those things that make a composite insider, body, spirit, soul, ect.
*I somehow got the feeling Jim's been reading people complaints about holes in his system as they see them from their perspective... and he wasn't any happier about them then I've been. So if I seem slightly defensive in insisting on seeing a pattern, it's because I DO, even if it's fan crack patterns, they still exist.
--- End quote ---
I don't see these things as the same in any regard. One affects the body and mind, the other the mind and soul. I'd like to know how you got the sense of Jim's disappointment, because maybe that will help convince me.
And be as defensive as you like; patterns are everywhere, even if not everyone sees them. I'd never dream of discouraging you; that's not my intent by disagreeing.
Cozarkian:
--- Quote from: Griffyn612 on January 05, 2018, 04:28:34 AM ---You know this is almost entirely wrong, right? The questions a prosecutor asks do not put the burden on the accused. If they ask where I was, and I say at home alone, the burden is still on the prosecution to not only prove that I wasn't at home alone, but that I was at the crime scene. I don't have to prove where I was, because I have the presumption of innocence in my favor.
Now, I can provide proof to help my defense. But if I left it at, "sorry, I was alone", it's not going to get me convicted. The evidence proving I was there (assuming there was any) would have to do that. That's the whole point of innocent-until-proven-guilty.
--- End quote ---
Also, in the U.S. you can just answer "talk to my lawyer" who will inform them you plead the 5th and they will not be allowed to tell the jury that you refused to give an alibi.
groinkick:
--- Quote from: Cozarkian on January 10, 2018, 07:01:58 PM ---Also, in the U.S. you can just answer "talk to my lawyer" who will inform them you plead the 5th and they will not be allowed to tell the jury that you refused to give an alibi.
--- End quote ---
They can still claim the defendant was unable to prove their whereabouts at the time of the crime.
Kindler:
--- Quote from: groinkick on January 10, 2018, 07:17:17 PM ---They can still claim the defendant was unable to prove their whereabouts at the time of the crime.
--- End quote ---
Alibis are just part of a negative defense (outright denial of the crime). To prove, for example, a murder case beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution relies on the old three elements: means, motive, and opportunity (which aren't actually enough in and of themselves; you need evidence that the opportunity was seized, for example). Lacking an alibi only means that they had an opportunity to commit the crime; it does nothing to establish means or motive, and not having an alibi does not mean that the opportunity was taken. A defendant doesn't have to prove that they weren't there, because the prosecutor still has to provide evidence that they were—a witness, security footage, bank transaction records, or, scarily, cellphone GPS data, for instance. The only witness providing a statement otherwise is the one who says he was where he was.
A good prosecutor will try to get the defendant to slip up and contradict their previous statements; if they said they were home all night watching TV, and later on they say they ran out to pick up milk, that's a different story altogether. That's evidence that they may have acted on the opportunity.
It doesn't always shake out that way; juries are people, after all. But that's not what the law is for.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version