[removed]

[removed]

At its most basic, an indictment is basically when someone accuses someone of something in a formal and public manner. An example of an indictment: "Hey everyone! This guy stole a bunch of shit from that store. [Turning to the thief] I saw you do it and this other guy did too. We should all talk about how we know you did it (like what kind of proof we have) and what we should do to punish you for it."

In common parlance, it's the act of a state formally accusing someone of a crime (although procedurally, people are "charged" with crimes as a separate step).

Strictly speaking, no its not because the words meaning has changed over time, as language often does.

Understanding the origin of words (etymology) is great! Not understanding that new meanings aren't strictly bound to older/other usages is not.

[removed]

It's a step in the incredibly long process of a person being tried for a crime. There are many more steps to come, but being indicted means a person has lost one of the ways to get out of it without punishment.

Insects work mostly automatically, their actions get triggered by specific impulses.

There was an experiment where they observed a beetle doing his mating... Things. I don't remember what exactly he did. Anyway, by disrupting the task and putting the bug in the same place as before, it would start the next action again and again, not realizing that it's attempts were futile. The bug could not learn and adapt to the situation. It was forced to play through its program linearly.

That's not their job.

So who decides if there is enough evidence to have a trial in the UK?

I don't think we have grand juries, so....just the police?

[removed]

is a grand jury always used? if not, what situations does it 'bypass' the grand jury?

Dunno if you're referring to a search warrant or arrest warrant; I'll assume the latter.

Broadly speaking, arrest warrants are issued because many suspects flee and hide instead of choosing to face justice, so the police has to arrest them to prevent that from happening.

In cases where the suspect is deemed unlikely to flee (or be unsuccessful at hiding) the justice system sometimes allows them to surrender on their own to face arraignment.

Additional factors: Was the crime violent, or white collar? Is the person sufficiently high-profile enough that offering a voluntary surrender is (politically and socially) preferable to arresting them at their home?

Great answer bro. Really clarifies things for us who were following your conversation thread.

Mind expounding behind the word "yes" in your answer?

[removed]

In america, it is an additional step after arrested, but before the trial.

I am not sure that England had an extra step. But it is charged. Formally saying that there is enough evidence to have a trial.

yeah you could theoretically be called for grand jury duty. You may look into regular jury duty selection if curious since it'll answer your question-- basically lots and lots of lawyers questioning jury people and dismissing those they think are too biased etc until they have the right amount of people.

As a species, we are kind of timeist. We can't really fathom how things work outside of our known space-time and we are pretty tied to our temporal causal relationships.

Likely because they know where he is, and he isn’t going to be able to disappear easily. Too high profile, and frankly too …loud? to be able to go unnoticed.

I would have to be at least 10 to understand this, and I have the IQ of an 8 year old.

I wonder what the mechanism of rabies is like? It causes extreme aggression in animals.

So, in the UK we just say...."arrested"? "Charged"? Not really sure.

[deleted]

It is possible to pick up extremely weak signals, even if there's background noise. For example, and this is radio and not sound but it illustrates an interesting point, the Voyager space probes are in interstellar space and their transmitters aren't any stronger now than they were when they launched. However, we're still able to communicate with them.

Point a very sensitive antenna at the sky right near, but not at, where you're looking for the signal; what this antenna will pick up is the background noise. Point another antenna exactly at the Voyager probe; this antenna picks up the background noise and the probe's signal. Subtract the two signals from each other and you're left with just the probe's signal.

Its a rather boorish reference to the Holocaust. I am more upset that you don't understand what this simple story is trying to convey. Maybe your school skipped over the WORLD WARS?

"red, with a white circle and a strange black cross in the middle." is the German military symbol "The Iron Cross" that date back to Prussia. The Nazi would use this symbol and wear armband to signal they were party member of the Nazi political organization that seized control of Germany during the post war period.

"yellow star on her chest" is the Star of David which was a six sided yellow star sewn onto Jewish people cloths during this time to make it easier to find and identify Jewish people. Which was required by law when the Nazi came into power in Post-war Germany.

It made easier for the Nazis to find and kill the Jews later on. And kill them they did.

Is there a boundary between space and whatever is not space?