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