|
lol... oh no, a cop huh?
John "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message ... 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... |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: 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 Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in the courtroom, of the defendant. I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg "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 |
Bob:
Yeah, that remark of mine did NOT make allowances for those just stuck there because of circumstances ... .... and, the convo is pretty much over when you have been asked to go away... frown Warmest regards, John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: 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 Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in the courtroom, of the defendant. I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg "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 |
Bob Miller wrote:
SNIPPED I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg Ah !!! Good ol' SWR [S]hort [W]ave [R]adio Or, am I missing sumptin ? |
Bill:
That sounds like an excellent idea, in fact, I will fire off a few emails to my reps and george right now... you suppose they'll read 'em? Or, care for that matter... frown Regards, John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:02:00 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: We just need a method to make them back responsible to us... _________________________________________________ Agreed. I would suggest we need a Constitutional amendment which allows an initiative process at the Federal level, much like many states have. -- BT |
|
wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Ken -- Just my 2¢... 73 es gd dx de Ken KGØWX Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #-1055 Proud builder & owner of Elecraft K2 #4913 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:13:06 -0500, "Ken Bessler"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... Ken |
SEE BELOW
en Bessler" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF. |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:54:49 -0400, Ham op wrote:
SEE BELOW en Bessler" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF. When did you hear I was deaf? And from whom? Not to mention I woudn't be caught dead playing golf? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com