So did Worf's Change of Heart cost him command of the Enterprise?

Because, if it's not an explicit line, you intend to come up with a string of improbabilities and claim they are certainties, MacLeod?

It's implicit in movie - ex: Picard not mentioning anything about the baku being first.
Not to mention common sense (from the premise 'no local power claims no one's land without searching for the civilisations/life-forms existing on planets/habitats there' it follows that 'the baku were not the first there'), etc (see my last post).

 

True. Whether or not it makes much sense logistically, it makes sense dramatically. Geordi has had very little character development and really seems to be in desperate need of some growth. Switching to the command track may do well to reinvigorate his character.
Taurik already seems like he is ready of assume Geordi's duties.

That's not to say I'm against new characters coming in, in fact I've loved most additions to all the relaunch book crews. Just saying that majority of fans would like to keep the established characters together as long as it doesn't strain common sense too much.

 

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

You are claiming eminant domain, yet you are unable to disprove that the Ba'ku got there first. The burden is on you to prove that the Ba'ku are trespassing. According to memory Alpha the Ba'ku landed there in 2066. Just about the only other known facts we know about that region is that Snoog considered it for his Augments in 2154 and the Klingons fought a battle against the Romulans in that that region in 2271. And by 2374 it was Federation Space.

So the question is was that region of space claimed by any race prior to 2066 which

a.>Later joined the Federation or
b.>At some point later ceded it the Federation.

Please provide onscreen evidence to back-up your claims of eminant domain.

Just because you think it is common sense to look first before claiming doesn't mean that everyone will apply the same reasoning.

 

I have proven the baku are trespassing to a high degree of probability, MacLeod.

As predicted, your argument has degraded to - you cannot prove with a 100% certainty that - meaning, the baku are not trespassing. Unconvincing.

 

But you've beena arguing that the Ba'ku are 100% guilty of trespassing, now you've moved to a high degree of probability. In court they would be found not guilty of trespassing because you've haven't proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crime you are accusing them of.

Now of course we can't say for certain which position is true, but at least in my country someone is innocent of a crime until it's proven beyond resanable doubt. I merely asked you to prove your position that they are guilty of trespassing.

But the whole movie is a mess, the Son'a could simply have been exiled to another part of the planet, planets being somewhat large.

 

Trespassing is not a crime in this case - it can't get one in prison; only evicted.
It's judged by civil law, not criminal law. In civil law there is no presumption of innocence, the state needing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in civil law the parties prove their assertions - and if they don't, their assertions mean little.

The federation can prove to a high degree of probability the baku are trespassers. The baku cannot prove to any degree they were there before the region was claimed, considering that throughout their stay they hid there, not announcing their presence.
AKA, as per civil law, the baku are trespassers.

 

Actually you can be impriosned for trespassing at least under English Law, though certain criteria have to be meet.

 

It's a little odd to judge the events of the film on 21st century US law. I'm guessing it's not exactly like that in the 24th Century Federation. There's never any suggestion the Baku are trespassing, indeed the whole film suggests they got to the planet first, and therefore have a claim to it. The Federation doesn't seem to be the land-grabbing kind. The notion of explicit borders around Federation territory is probably off too. There are probably a load of planets surrounded by Federation words which aren't themselves Federation members.

 

Oh I agree on all points, we don't know the exact model that the Federation law is based on. It would seem to be based on common law (i.e English law as most common law countries were part of the British Empire/Commonwealth) rather than civil law. But at the end of the day we are guessing.

As for who laid claim to the planet first, in the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to say the Ba'ku. The film implies that they got there first, I don't recall anyone saying that they were trespassing and needed to be evicted.

 

The movie directly said it's federation space, Tomalak.
And there's plenty of other evidence 'to the contrary' (which you could not overturn), MacLeod.

As per 'not judge with 21st century law', that's a standard attempt to move the goal posts - you cannot save your argument within the confines of self-consistent law (trespassing, eminent domain exists in all legislations, which are otherwise quite different from eachother), so you hand-wave another type of legislation with no clear definition or rules beyond the fact that it supports your argument.

BTW, MacLeod, both civil law and criminal law - two fundamental entities of law - exist within common law systems (and all other law systems).

 

Yes the movie stated it was Federation space, but the Ba'ku settled on that world BEFORE the Federation was founded so it wasn't Federation space at that point. Now whether or not it was claimed by some species when the Ba'ku settled on it who would later become a Federation member or would later cede the space to the Federation can't be proven. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Ba'ku aren't trespassing.

One of the key differences between Common and Civil law, is that in common law precedent is looked it. So it doesn't really matter if it's a criminal case or a civil case the ruling would be weighted towards looking at precedent (i.e what other courts had ruled before, what would be called case Law). In Civil law is more codified (statutary law) whilst Case Law would be considered secondary in civil law countries.

Now of course that is an over simplification of the two types of law, and a few countries do use a mix of both.

 

"but the Ba'ku settled on that world BEFORE the Federation was founded" - if this were true, it would not be federation space, MacLeod. And there is other evidence 'to the contrary' which comfortably proves eminent domain as per civil law (as in civil-criminal law existing in all law systems, NOT civil-common law) standards of proof.
Of course, we've already went over this. And frankly, I have no interest in continuing a discussion when it becomes a ~'who is willing to spend more time typing at the keyboard' contest.

 

And that's where you're wrong (again). A planet need not be colonized by Federation citizens for it to be within Federation territory. I suspect this concept is too complicated for you (as many other things seem to be), but that's your problem. I'll leave you to your perpetual masturbation.

--Sran

 

^Following up on my previous post, there's dialogue in Insurrection itself that establishes the Ba'ku settled on the planet more than three hundred years before the film's events took place. Edit, how does it feel to live a life of ignorance?

--Sran

 

What if Kira got command of the Enterprise? Who's to say that she has to live on DS9 for the rest of her career. Surely at some point after the war Bajor would have joined the Federation and at least part of the Bajoran military absorbed into Starfleet...

 

This, and that.

 

If you've seen any of the DS9 Relaunch novels, the Bajoran militia was absorbed into Starfleet when Bajor was accepted into the Federation. Kira was granted a Starfleet commission and promoted to captain. She ultimately resigned from Starfleet to pursue a career in the Vedek Assembly before disappearing during the events of Typhon Pact: Raise the Dawn.

--Sran

 

with so many dead form the Dominion war, he might redeem himself, I mean Riker got to stay in SF even after the Peagus ...

 

The Pegasus was one incident. And as Riker's overall service record was exceptional, it's likely that Starfleet decided they were better off keeping him than not.

--Sran

 

If superiority complexes would hurt, you would be in agony right now, Sran.

Also - you obviously need to watch the movie (you have no idea what's established there).
And read the posts you're responding to. For the self-appointed grammar nazi you are, you fail to even do this (not to mention, getting confused about the semantics of simple words).