Writing about truth and lies
If we want to find the absolute truth, we must find the evidence, and that kind of things are really difficult things. When somebody comes to the courtroom, that person would tell, that the fault was that inmate, who is sitting on the chair of prosecuted. This is the fictional example of how human brains work, and I have read it from some magazine. But then that person starts to tell that other person made something unexpected during the situation, like accelerated speed, while the charged person came to the main road from behind the triangle.
That thing means that the person who is charged got hit to the right side of the vehicle, but another person accelerated the speed and the distance was safe when the turning was done. Without evidence that case would be difficult to the solute. The thing is that we cannot know who is telling lies if there are no marks for the burning rubber what is the mark of the fast accelerating or something like that. In that case, would the person confess about being guilty, but then the mind would change.
In fact, in the mind of the person, who came in the front to another vehicle behind the triangle, would create in the mind the model, where another person is guilty anyway, and this kind of things are really dangerous. That inmate would start to tell the stories about the acceleration of another vehicle and cause very bad problems to the opposite side.
This is one thing, the law doesn't mean a thing when the person would feel to be on the right side. And the behavior would be pumped full of energy when that person stands in the bar with the whiskey glass and surrounded by friends, who are supporting that story, without even seen what has been happened. Or they haven't even seen that accident car. But this thing, what might feel really nice could cause problems for the opponent.
If we want to find the absolute truth, we must find the evidence, and that kind of things are really difficult things. When somebody comes to the courtroom, that person would tell, that the fault was that inmate, who is sitting on the chair of prosecuted. This is the fictional example of how human brains work, and I have read it from some magazine. But then that person starts to tell that other person made something unexpected during the situation, like accelerated speed, while the charged person came to the main road from behind the triangle.
That thing means that the person who is charged got hit to the right side of the vehicle, but another person accelerated the speed and the distance was safe when the turning was done. Without evidence that case would be difficult to the solute. The thing is that we cannot know who is telling lies if there are no marks for the burning rubber what is the mark of the fast accelerating or something like that. In that case, would the person confess about being guilty, but then the mind would change.
In fact, in the mind of the person, who came in the front to another vehicle behind the triangle, would create in the mind the model, where another person is guilty anyway, and this kind of things are really dangerous. That inmate would start to tell the stories about the acceleration of another vehicle and cause very bad problems to the opposite side.
This is one thing, the law doesn't mean a thing when the person would feel to be on the right side. And the behavior would be pumped full of energy when that person stands in the bar with the whiskey glass and surrounded by friends, who are supporting that story, without even seen what has been happened. Or they haven't even seen that accident car. But this thing, what might feel really nice could cause problems for the opponent.
Comments
Post a Comment