Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Larry, I think you may have missed Brian's point.

You mean the part of the Constitution that allows us free speech and the right to express opinions?

There is a huge difference between someone expressing an opinion and a juror determining a verdict. My opinion doesn't put anyone in jail and it doesn't send anyone to prison.

If I was on a jury, I would have an open mind and listen to the testimony and see the evidence before forming an opinion. However, I'm not on a jury and want my First Amendment rights to express myself respected.

BTW, jury trials in the US don't use "innocent" when giving a verdict. We use "not guilty". There's a big difference.

"Sure, let's repeal the Bill of Rights and the Constitution."


Some are already trying their best to do that."

"We can let TV be the judge and jury."

We have been letting that happen since Watergate.

I just heard on the news that they are discussing weather to read him his rights or not.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Based on his and his brothers actions after the bombing, I'm inclined to believe they are guilty. But being how he is still a citizen he should have a trial. If he does go to trial and is found guilty his punishment should fit his crime.

IS HE!?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT are we to make of THIS?:

Marathon Bombing Suspect Became U.S. Citizen On September 11 « CBS Boston

As far as I am concerned, their citizenship should be REVOKED, etc.... They came here at or after 2000, which means all the parents/uncles/press said were LIES!!!!! The youngest was over ********EIGHT********! One went to russia for SIX MONTHS!!!!! OK, to the best of my knowledge, you can't just take a vacation over 3 months. He came back, and one "became a citizen" on the one year anniversary of 9/11. THEN, about 7 months later, allegedly bombs one of the biggest events in boston, which has a bunch of people running, some with almost NO leg protection, in a marathon. The bombs are meant to MAIME!

GUILTY OR NOT, the citizenship should be revoked. If innocent, they should be sent back. If they are guilty, they should be punished.

BTW HITLER SAID he was guilty! The entire country knew. John Wilkes booth SAID he was guilty! He wrote in his journal, etc... Osama bin laden supposedly SAID he was guilty.

Steve

I think they could lengthen that window a little. Technically he's in the hospital under police watch and not detained in jail. I don't think he has been charged yet so they don't have to read him his rights until he is coherent enough to hear them and to be officially charged with a crime.
Or they could just call him a terrorist and detain him for life without a trial.
Supposedly at one point they where tossing hand grenades out the car window. I've got to wonder if true where they got them from. Either they stole them from a govt. arsenal or someone sold them to them on the black market. I think there has to be others involved at the least with supplying them with their arsenal.

There's no rush - a recent law allows delay when public safety may be in play. Feds want to know if there are more bombs somewhere - if there are others involved, etc. The word innocent isn't applicable here - level of guilt is more like it.

Bingo!
Scary isn't it?

fair enuff Doran.

actually well siad.

I don't believe shiiit anymore ...I have to see it, and think i understand it to
actually believe.

except for science. I believe most of that.But that is becuase i have abackground..
and it is pretty easy to see through most ( not all ) of the bs

It could very well have been something like these, gone wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op...anted=all&_r=0
Or it could be something like in the thread Don S. started.

30 years ago i might have agreed, now with the power of video editing
real time streaming and holly wood tricks posted where all can learn.

I don't believe that is a plausible argument ..any more.

nowadays you cannot even look at a picture and know for sure
it is 100% real.

The prevailing mindset is " If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
Principles be damned!

We also just saw it in Boston....but they all felt it was "for the good of the community".

They did the *****EXACT***** same thing in WACO! And in WACO, they claimed the use of the flammable tear gas was a mistake. Ironically, that whole thing happened because they thought koresh's group had too many guns. Things like that make the guns JUSTIFIED! They can't say the fear was unwarranted.

Steve

Yep. Jamie, time to put a brain in your head.

Adolf Hitler was a criminal. But he was not found guilty in court.

Try this example: Bob Smith comes up to you, punches you in the nose and steals your wallet. Can you go around saying Bob Smith assaulted you and stole your wallet? Can you tell the police this?

Obviously. Even though Bob Smith has not been criminally convicted in court of assaulting you or stealing from you.

There are many reasons why a criminal conviction may not happen. For instance, a unanimous verdict is required, so one crazy juror can prevent a conviction. That doesn't mean the person being tried is innocent.

Or, due to a technicality evidence may not be admissible for some reason. The criminal is not convicted, but that does not mean they are innocent.

Do you understand the difference between innocent and not guilty?

The risk you have in saying someone committed a crime when they have not yet been convicted in court is that, if you are wrong and they in fact did not do anything they you could be sued for defamation. Truth is a defense in a defamation action.

A final ironic example: someone named Jamie goes around calling other people stupid. Ironically, there has been no legal finding someone is stupid. So according to Jamie's own logic he should be liable for defamation.

If you want to assert Hitler never did anything wrong because he was not criminally convicted in court, go right ahead.

Do you understand the difference between a court ruling a wrongful act occurred and the fact a wrongful act occurred?

.

Sooo, you're saying guilty unless proven innocent?

Terra

Yeah. Supposedly, the FRENCH constitution speaks of presumed innocence. American law is now forced, by precedent, to ASSUME GUILT!

You know, it is FUNNY! They USED to determine paternity through a blood test. BLOOD has 1 set of 4 combinations, and one set of 2 combinations. They work out as follows....

If the baby is:

A+ then NEITHER parent can be B, and at least one must be +
B+ then NEITHER parent can be A, and at least one parent must be +
AB+ then one parent must be A, B, or AB and the other must be B, A or AB and at least one must be + If both are the same, they must both be AB
O means NEITHER parent can be AB

If the child is - parents can be + or -

GRANTED, if they delve a bit deeper, it is a LITTLE bit easier, and some false positives can be ironed out, but I don't think they did that. And THIS determines PATERNITY!

One accused rapist got off because this PROVED he was innocent, and they later found a FLAW in their logic! They found the flaw after he was accused several times and someone decided to try a sample from ANOTHER place!

And NOW, they have DNA! The way of discerning DNA will, if we live long enough, and advance far enough, one day be LAUGHED AT! And the statistics are HEAVILY misapplied! A 1 in 30 trillion chance of a duplicate does NOT mean a duplicate isn't next door. HECK, monozygotic twins have been switched and it was later found that people with the SAME DNA were on opposite ends of the planet! But even if they weren't monozygotic, there is enough play in the diagrams they read.

Steve

As soon as a person is arrested they are presumed guilty, why else would they be arrested?
When you go to trial the prosecutors present evidence of your guilt and it is up to the defense to prove that evidence is false.
With over 150,000 federal laws and the uncountable state laws everyone is considered guilty of something, the state just has to figure out what.

That's interesting - and it's what I've watched happen online in this particular story. Made up facts are presented as "truth" and any documented facts that don't fit are "a lie".

The actual affidavit is printed in that paper - that was my point. Those who want to see Dorner as "poor victim" have created their story and no facts are going to get in the way. If a fact doesn't fit their scenario, it's labeled a "lie".

Anti-anything agendas are only convincing if the 'theorists' choose their heroes wisely. In this particular case, that wasn't done.

It may sound like it - but I'm not angry about this - just perplexed. I don't understand how intelligent, rational people could buy into the Dorner as a victim story. I think he was mentally unbalanced. It's a sad story all around but a rather shaky platform as a conspiracy.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ed-cop-killer/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3119236.html

The first one that came to my mind happened about 3 years ago.
My buddies Harley broke down and I went to help him get it home. I had my work truck with a trailer loaded with mowing equipment. We moved the equipment as far to one side as we could and commenced to push the bike onto the trailer. Suddenly a State Trooper pulled up behind us with his lights all a flashin. He got out of his car and started to help us push the bike onto the trailer.
Then there was the time I was on the NY thruway coming home from Booneville. It had just gotten dark and was rather chilly (I was on my motorcycle). When I saw the Trooper car on the side of the road I was doing 85 in a 65 zone. Needless to say he pulled me over. When he asked if I knew how fast I was going I said yep, slower then I was before I saw you. He laughed and we bullshitted for a while about motorcycles. Ended up with a parking ticket instead of a speeding ticket.
I've had more then my share of run ins with the cops, some good and some bad. One thing I have learned is not to judge the uniform, but the person wearing it.