|
John Smith wrote:
Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however, improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart... Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-) Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. _______________________________________________ __ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Which proves that $500,000 lawyers are better than $50,000 lawyers." Yes. I was in Scotland a week ago and someone told me that there, besides guilty or not guilty, the Scots have a third verdict available. It is "Guilt not proven". In this verdict the person charged is not exonorated but is released. This "guil not prioven" verdict is said to be the origin of the term "Scot free". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil:
A "Hindu Alien" with a southern Baptist background? grin .... don't worry, I don't take things too seriously--homo sapiens especially... won't live long enough to be able to hold a grudge for any meaningful length of time either--so have given up on that, better left to younger men... My flawed antenna(s) is/are still functioning to my satisfaction... I am thankful for that... Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however, improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart... Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-) Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Bob:
If you don't welcome men/women back into society after they have either run the gauntlet or paid their debt to society--then all you accomplish is creating a whole subset of society which poses great danger when held as "less than acceptable"--indeed, if not careful we can create the monster we fear most. This is how our ancestors came to overthrow such a kings strangle hold and found this country on principals meant to stop that from ever occurring again--or demand those so oppressed to rise up and throw off such chains once again... it is all recorded in our history... I think those men who suffered greatly from unfair treatment, indebted servitude, debtors prisons and virtual slavery had it correct--the principals they put forth are as valid today as they were when first stated and put forth... Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set up with him and he would have gone there willingly... Warmest regards, John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. ________________________________________________ _ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:12:34 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set up with him and he would have gone there willingly... Warmest regards, John No disagreement -- I was only talking legalities of "guilty" or "not", not whether anyone would want to leave their kids with Jacko for a bunk-over... bob k5qwg "Bob Miller" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. _______________________________________________ __ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
Bill:
Right now nothing seems to make sense... and it does appear if a general "uprising" approaches... One example is where the clear majority of voters approves a law and/or revision to a law--and a court overturns it... .... or ... When clearly the majority wish one outcome, they communicate that to their representative--yet their public servant goes on and votes against their wishes... We just need a method to make them back responsible to us... John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. _________________________________________________ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. -- Bill, W6WRT |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. _______________________________________________ __ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
Bob:
But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a seat... John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. ________________________________________________ _ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
QFU K
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Bob: But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com