PNR Films (Real group or practical joke?)

Originally posted by TC
I like how you said you're not going to touch it.... and then go on to comment on it! :)
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of a big arguement on the subject. Why Can't you let things rest as Weasel made his comment I made mine he made his and we left it at that. why you always get on my case is beyond me. You give me such a headache.
 
Originally posted by DoomsdayPlague
I meant in terms of a big arguement on the subject. Why Can't you let things rest as Weasel made his comment I made mine he made his and we left it at that. why you always get on my case is beyond me. You give me such a headache.
Click to expand...
Relax. TC likes to point out such inconsistencies, but he's not trying to offend you or anything :).
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel
Wow. I could've swore that they said he was not guilty...
Click to expand...

The one time I was on a jury, the defense attorney went to great pains to point out that that the jury just finds whether or not the defendent is guilty, and that finding the defendent 'Not Guilty' does not necessarily mean that the defendent is 'Innocent'.
It just means that there's reasonable doubt.
 
also, like what happened with OJ, you can be found not guilty in a criminal trial and then get slammed in a civil suit. ahhh the wonders of the american criminal justice system.
 
Originally posted by Starkey
Right. In such circunstances, the case can be opened later if new evidence shows up.
Click to expand...

No it can't. The same person can't be charged for the same offense twice. Reasonable doubt means that you're found not guilty and aquitted, the case isn't put on hold. If you go to trial and are aquitted, you're done (other than, obviously, appeal to a higher court)

Originally posted by Junior

The one time I was on a jury, the defense attorney went to great pains to point out that that the jury just finds whether or not the defendent is guilty, and that finding the defendent 'Not Guilty' does not necessarily mean that the defendent is 'Innocent'.
It just means that there's reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

That is a bit of a spin on things though... The reason people aren't found 'innocent' isn't because they aren't necessarily innocent... it's because they are presumed innocent until they're found to be guilty. The jury doesn't have the right to find someone innocent, due to the fact that they already were... at least, as far as I understand it.
 
Originally posted by TC
No it can't. The same person can't be charged for the same offense twice. Reasonable doubt means that you're found not guilty and aquitted, the case isn't put on hold. If you go to trial and are aquitted, you're done (other than, obviously, appeal to a higher court)
Click to expand...

It was a logical guess of mine, since I am not well acquainted with the American justice system. Here in Brazil, you have three basic outcomes for a criminal trial (after all appeals, of course): 1) The defendant is found guilty and sentenced; 2) The defendant is found not guilty and released forever; 3) The defendant is released for the lack of conclusive evidence against him. In that third case, they suspend the trial and, if new strong evidence is found later, during a certain limit of years, the case can be reopened.
 
In the US, once you're found Not Guilty, you cannot be tried again. There have been instances where people admitted to the crime well after the trial (one instance involved a writer who paid a sum of cash to two white men who had been involved in the lynching of a black kid in the south), but even in those instances, the law can't touch the individuals involved. The concept is known as Double Jeopardy in the US (and British) legal system, and is forbidden by the Bill of Rights. A person can only be retried if the jury can't come to a unanimous decision.
As far as the Innocent vs. Not Guilty thing goes, I think the best way to look at it is both ideas are correct. A person is "innocent until proven guilty" in the US legal system, and thus its necessary to prove that they are guilty. But this also means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that, combined with the "reasonable doubt" standard (as opposed to "preponderance of evidence, which is used in civil trials), means that its entirely possible for a guilty individual to get a not guilty ruling even if jurors suspect that the individual really did do what he or she was accused of - so long as there's reasonable doubt that the suspect didn't do it.
 
Originally posted by junior
In the US, once you're found Not Guilty, you cannot be tried again. There have been instances where people admitted to the crime well after the trial (one instance involved a writer who paid a sum of cash to two white men who had been involved in the lynching of a black kid in the south), but even in those instances, the law can't touch the individuals involved. The concept is known as Double Jeopardy in the US (and British) legal system, and is forbidden by the Bill of Rights. A person can only be retried if the jury can't come to a unanimous decision.
Click to expand...
True enough. Of course, a person found not guilty of one offense could later be tried for a different offense that he committed at the same time. A person aquitted of armed robbery could later be tried and found guilty of committing a murder during the robbery he "didn't commit."

Also, a person might later be tried for and convicted of perjury (lying under oath) if he testified in his own defense but was subsequently demonstrated to have commited the original offense.

The reason that O.J. could be found liable in a civil suit even though he was found not guilty in a criminal trial is because the standard of proof is different. In a civil case, the plaintiff must show that the defendent is liable by the "preponderance of evidence." That means that if 51% of the evidence points to the defendent being liable, then he can be found liable.
 
Originally posted by junior
In the US, once you're found Not Guilty, you cannot be tried again. There have been instances where people admitted to the crime well after the trial (one instance involved a writer who paid a sum of cash to two white men who had been involved in the lynching of a black kid in the south), but even in those instances, the law can't touch the individuals involved. The concept is known as Double Jeopardy in the US (and British) legal system, and is forbidden by the Bill of Rights. A person can only be retried if the jury can't come to a unanimous decision.
As far as the Innocent vs. Not Guilty thing goes, I think the best way to look at it is both ideas are correct. A person is "innocent until proven guilty" in the US legal system, and thus its necessary to prove that they are guilty. But this also means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that, combined with the "reasonable doubt" standard (as opposed to "preponderance of evidence, which is used in civil trials), means that its entirely possible for a guilty individual to get a not guilty ruling even if jurors suspect that the individual really did do what he or she was accused of - so long as there's reasonable doubt that the suspect didn't do it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw a movie based on the subject called to nobodies suprise "double jeopardy". It starred Ashley Judd playing a character who supposedly murdered her husband but he just faked his death and framed her for it. she went to jail and later found out he was alive and she was legally allowed to kill him if she wanted as she already had been charged for the very crime. But I think some cop killed him instead. Haven't seen it in awhile and its very similar to the Fugitive and its sequel U.S. marshalls storyline so I might have got it mixed up a little bit.
 
WonderBuild

I did a routine google search of my business name, "WonderBuild" and found this most hilarious thread about PNR and the back & forth discussion about WonderBuild, the site designer/developer. So, in an effort to answer some of your questions...I actually created a username/password for this Forum.

<i> it was designed by WonderBuild. They have one other public site that shows up on a google - B52 Billiards, a beer and billiards bar in Denver - which is also Flash. Their own site www.wonderbuild.com is pretty dull, and provides no information about the company.</i>

The site www.wonderbuild.com is dull...because we aren't actively seeking clients/projects. We take some projects by referral, and do them usually for free or very little cost to gain experience. PNR was a site done by a partner of WonderBuild at a time where he was learning/researching Flash. Same with b52billiards.com. But we do more than just Flash. And nobody has asked us to update the site. And no we didn't charge 30k.

Any other questions?
 
Hehe, wow, I'll bet no one saw this coming. Your group's name sure wound up in an awful thread (G)

Hmm, did you all develop the actual graphics (specifically, the kid logo and the 'stylized' Wing Commander screenshot that pops up in the lower left hand corner when you pick 'games') or were they provided by PNR?
 
Dear Bandit LOAF,

The "kid logo" (kid holding stuffed animal looking through lighted door at outer space) was PNR's logo already, before we were given the project. I believe the designer of this flash site created the other artwork and styles that accompany the menu options throughout the site. But, please don't quote me on that. If you are intersted in contacting the creative genius behind the PNRfilms.com site, I would be more than happy to pass along his information. He's an extremely talented animation artist.

Thanks,
WonderBuild
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top