These are people I see asking other people to respond with a "yes" or a "no" to something they have previously pronounced interrogatively, so transforming or filtering the first statement through a conditional one. This is also proclaimed by the asker as a question-only, with an answer-only solution. Which clearly it is not. Perhaps this is because such irrational types also believe wholeheartedly that the law shows on the goggle-box that have characters posing as real-life lawyers in a court doing such stuff, are how it works. If I was testifying in a courtroom with a real-live judge and a lawyer asked me a question (pick a question, pick any question, but think now), then instructed that I answer yes, or no, I'd ask the judge about the question, to make sure what it was about (and to get it on record - the judge's word is where the buck stops), then ask him if he wanted me to say either yes or no, or could I say them together (i.e. was the condition exclusive, or inclusive?). Just so it was on the record, about the answer to the lawyer's question... P.S. About that question, for anyone who still thinks asking someone to say "a" or "b" is a question: I would want the judge to explain - do I answer the question, and then say yes or say no, (or the inclusive condition), or say the yes-no thing first, then answer the question?
Contrary to what might be popular opinion, there are many questions that cannot be answered with a direct "yes/no." For example, "Does you mother know you are a killer? Yes or No!" The trial courts aren't stupid and are well aware of such things. The judge will simply order that the question be rephrased.
Vkothii, have you been in the situation lately of answering to a judge? I had a go not so long ago and the Judge loved me but the opposing barrister was a piece of work and unsettled me ( fuck me, what a loaded situation, it was like some fat guy walking off the street and trying to beat me at squash..not gonna happen), anyway , in hindsight, I'd have cut to the chase, told some home truths and seen a different result. Lay it down ( layman's terms for me please).
Yes, you can. Someone can even ask me something like that. I'd say something back like: "I can't really say, maybe, it depends what you mean by 'agree with'. So what do you mean?"
Sure. But not all judges or other officials are so open-minded as to be willing to explain or rephrase. My father told me has was once asked in court a question of the kind "Do you not think that the Earth is not round? Yes or no?" You know, the sort of question where there are some negatives in the sentences and where it is not clear what exactly is the question - whether it is about what he thinks, or whether it is about the fact. My father refused to answer with a Yes or No, and instead answered in a full sentence, explaining his answer. He was pressured to simply answer with a Yes or No, and he said he could not, because the question could be taken in several ways. The judge threatened to hold him in contempt of the court if he wouldn't answer the question with a Yes or No. Such things can happen too.
Hold on, I am not very good at this kind of questions. So here's another one: "Don't you think that animals are inferior to humans? Yes or no?"
Oh, to have the presence of mind to say to the atagonistic barrister something like" When you ask ( loaded question) I have to wonder if you have even read the affadavit and if you have, I can only presume you are attempting to elicit a pre-envisaged response to further the cause of your grasping client. Which is it..counsel?
