What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"??

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

Yeah - I'm talkin' Boston Marathon bombings.

Even though one "suspect" is dead, the other in custody and seriously wounded,

there has been no trial yet, or even charges laid . . .

Did I miss something?

CC

[ZombieHorde]

1. Innocent until proven guilty is how our government should act.

It is not about the general populace, who will naturally form opinions and voice them.

[kysrsoze]

28. Innocence presumed ONLY during presentation of evidence during a trial

This is a common public misconception. When you are arrested, indicted, fingerprinted, considered for bail, etc., you are presumed guilty. Otherwise, you wouldn't be incarcerated.

Of course, the public can presume whatever they want.

[truedelphi]

45. Ah excuse me but in legal circles there was quite a bit of furor over

A President (Nixon during the Charles Manson Trial, and Obama during Manning's tirial) saying words to the effect that that the guilty person should be found guilty.

You mightn't think that it is important. So I invite you to watch or re-watch the excellent movie "State of Siege."

You might need to watch it several times for it to sink in - the "guilt of any person in this nation, if allowed to be determined ONLY be the playing of "evidence" on TV is a shabby way to handle our inalienable rights to be presumed innocent and to have a trial."

Remember the original suspect in the Atlanta GA Olympic bombing? IO am fairly convince that had this bombing occurred after Nine Eleven, then he would have been shot and seriously hurt long before it was discovered the authorities had nabbed the wrong person.

No where in any major discussion of our Constitutional rights do our founding fathers say, "Well if it should be explained again and again on our nation's Major Main$tream media that an individual did such and such, at the tenth viewing of such claptrap, that person no longer deserves his right to be presumed innocent."

We have all witnessed over the last fourteen years the damage this type of "The matter before us is so serious that it deserves no thoughtfulness or real consideration - so full steam ahead."

In fact, it is this style of "Shock Doctrine" thinking by which so many people on the Democratic side of the aisle condemn George Dubya and Cheney. the judgement against the Republicans in power is out in full force -- on account of the fact that now most people are aware of the Big Lie that launched the Shock and Awe and ten eyar Occupation of the nation of Iraq, with so much civilian death, perhaps as many as one million people killed there, and six and a half thousand of oru people as well. Even though, let's be honest the damn Democrats voted for the Iraq War the second they affirmed the passage of the Iraq War Resolution, Fall of 2002.

[kysrsoze]

52. Your diatribe doesn't change the legal definition of presumed innocence

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:39 PM - Edit history (2)

I understand full well how the public can presume people like Richard Jewell guilty and cause lots of damage. I've read , "To Kill a Mockingbird," a book written precisely on that subject. I think the
New York Post should be sued for publishing the pics of those other two men who had nothing to do with it. I also live in Illinois, where multiple death row inmates were given new trials due to shoddy trials.

I was just explaining the fact that presumption of innocence exists ONLY in the courtroom, like it or not. And these two pricks were apparently videotaped carjacking someone and placing a bomb, and shot/threw bombs at cops. The younger brother is entitled to a fair trial, but nothing legal or otherwise says anyone is required to presume him innocent outside a courtroom.

And... your presumption that I'm guilty of not caring about justice and fairness, and that I would have to watch your suggested movie assignment multiple times for your supposed infinite wisdom to "sink in" was WRONG. I suppose it's horrific for me to presume you an obnoxious, self-righteous asshat based solely on your post, but I do.

[X_Digger]

69. Good point, but subtle. n/t

[GitRDun]

2. They confessed to the guy they stole the SUV from.

The FBI also stated they have film of them dropping bags.

Not a trial, but I don't think it is unfair to assume for the time being they will be found guilty.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. We should assume nothing - and most media coverage is slewed.

.
.
.

There can be extenuating circumstances.

We "know" NOTHING!

Maybe we'll never know.

I remember well in the upswing to the invasion in Iraq, media coverage constantly put images of 911 behind pictures of Saddam Hussein, who had nothing at all to do with 911!

Americans bought it, tens of thousands of Iraqis got maimed or slaughtered.

I do not trust the media, nor do I trust the USA's government, -

heck, I do not even trust my own!

Look what they are allowing to be done to northern Alberta with that tar-sands disgrace.

We will pay for that - for decades . . .

(sigh)

CC

[GitRDun]

22. I agree we should assume "facts" can be proven wrong.

I just don't know that I can blame someone for assuming, for the time being, the guys are guilty and focusing on issues like why, how, etc.

[Cleita]

53. So what the SUV guy says is engraved in granite?

Really, I thought we used to want more facts and sources of collaborating evidence.

[GitRDun]

56. If you read my post I did not say anything was etched in granite...

All I said was that given the information that is out there SO FAR, I don't see the point in criticizing people for thinking they will EVENTUALLY be found guilty...

Sheesh

[CBGLuthier]

3. the part where they started tossing bombs of similar manufacture to those used

in the Boston Marathon bombing makes them some what seem to be guilty. I believe in a fair and complete trial but this fucker is as guilty as they come.

So as far as the trial goes he is indeed innocent until proven guilty. but only conspiracy theory whackos can speculate that these motherfuckers are truly innocent.

[Poll_Blind]

8. +1

PB

[WinkyDink]

12. Being caught red-handed doesn't change the rights of the accused. After all, we DO

offer a "guilty by reason of insanity" defense.

J/S.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. NOT suggesting they are innocent.

.
.
.

But we have judicial systems.

It should be up to THEM to decide, review the "evidence", discover what is credible and so on.

Isn't that what the courts are for?

Seems to me that these two have been tried and convicted in a matter of days by the media and the population.

That's not the way it's supposed to work,

just sayin'

CC

[X_Digger]

70. Have the two been sentenced while we weren't looking?

Or were you just talking about the court of public opinion?

The public (other than those serving on a jury, I suppose) has no duty to maintain a presumption of innocence. Of course a verdict in the court of public opinion carries no sentence, either.

[ConcernedCanuk]

71. "The public ... has no duty to maintain a presumption of innocence"

.
.
.

I did not say that .

But you do raise a point that deserves discussion.

"the court of public opinion" has gotten tens of thousands slaughtered.

NOT just the USA, but the USA has a massive propaganda machine, convincing much of the World to participate in it's so-called "Coalition of the Willing"

I believe that it would have been more properly named "Coalition of the Coerced"

Never was I so proud of our government than when our Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to believe the USA's "evidence" to get us involved in the Iraq invasion.

Sadly, I cannot say the same about any of our leaders after him.

I am no longer proud of my country.

With luck, and an awakening of our voters (not holding my breath) -

maybe I will once more be proud of my country before I die.

maybe . .

(sigh)

CC

[Rex]

4. Gee I dunno, you think some people here are letting their emotions

speak for them? Seriously, do you except all humans to be robots? You do know we have people from Boston that post here right? Not saying it is right or wrong, just pointing out the obvious.

ALSO

The guy shot back at the cops, even injured from a prior gunfight with the cops - yet he is still a suspect. Boston PD has shown unbelievable restraint in this case imo.

He will heal, there will be a trial, this is just an internet forum where we can say anything we want.

Justice will prevail.

[WinkyDink]

14. Oh, true enough, and I'm usually the first to point out the Internet bit. But HYPOCRISY

needs to be pointed out, too.

I mean, this guy's now guilty without a trial, right? Yet some of us were lectured, even hectored, over earlier speculating (please don't give me that "But now we have FACTS" argument, because we had "facts" in Dallas in 1963, LA in 1968, you get my drift).

OPINIONS ARE OPINIONS, AND HIGH HORSES ARE HIGH HORSES.

[Bjorn Against]

5. He will get a trial

He is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but it is unreasonable to expect that no one has an opinion on what he did for the next year or more before he goes to trial.

[Marrah_G]

6. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term

And in the eyes of the court he is innocent until proven guilty.

[WinkyDink]

21. I think he's the criminal, but when I heard the COPS call him "the killer" and "the perp," well,

THEN I wanted to hear the word "suspect."

Maybe it's becasue I'm a Boomer.

[marions ghost]

101. cops have used those terms in practice since before you were born

My dad was a reporter who has ridden along with cops. Officially they would say suspect.

[Poll_Blind]

7. See, it's like you're pretending these dudes were just picked up off the street for no reason.

Not only were they already suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, but they killed an MIT guard, carjacked a Mercedes SUV, kept the driver hostage for about ahalf hour, during which they told him they committed the bombings, let him go, then got into an extended gun and explosives fight with police during which one of the brothers rushed the police and was killed while the other brother escaped.

That's probably what you missed.

PB

[WinkyDink]

20. Guess what? Those "facts" aren't, until established in a court of law.

[onenote]

76. so should he be let go until "facts" are established beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom?

Because if you think that, you don't understand a thing about the American criminal justice as it has existed for the entire history of this nation.

Of course, I think you understand exactly how it works and just want to stir shit.

[Ikonoklast]

10. What point are you trying to make?

That POS will get a trial, bet on it.

And he'll be convicted, bet on that, too.

I haven't heard anyone in government come out and say that he was guilty of anything.


But for some reason I don't think he'll get a bail hearing.

[marybourg]

11. Right-wing demagoguery ( and liberal trepidation) happened.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Did something happen to it? n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

16. You even put 'suspect' in parentheses? Really?

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal construct that has no bearing on public opinion or the preponderance of evidence against these criminals. Still, I'm glad we savages here in the US provided you with the opportunity to stick your nose in the air in a supercilious manner.

'Concern' duly noted

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. yes, - really

.
.
.

and rolling eyes, calling me supercilious serves no purpose.

If these two did indeed perpetrate the tragic events in Boston, I bet they did not do it alone.

Maybe did it under coercion, threats etc., - but in my mind just two young men could not have created this disaster on their own.

It took a heck of a lot of money, research and organizing to have created this disaster.

Again, I say IF, mind you the possibilities are there that these 2 planted the bombs, I believe there's a heck of a lot more people involved in this.

And they are still out there.

These two may be akin to suicide bombers elsewhere - stuck out front to be sacrificial lambs.

CC

[octothorpe]

32. Why do you (and others) seem convinced there has to be more behind this?

What aspects of this bombing do you think involved a lot of money, research and planning? How much did these bombs cost to make? What kind of advanced planning was required?

To me, it would only require advanced planning and organization if there was a larger operation whose main intent was to make it look like these guys acted alone. However, there isn't anything that points to that, so it seems silly to automatically assume that's the case simply because there is no proof that there was a larger operation. The lack of evidence is the evidence or something.

[Katashi_itto]

35. Cool! A conspiracy theorist!

[Cirque du So-What]

39. You didn't address the possibility of accomplices in your OP

but you'll find me in agreement with you on that possibility. The actions of these two, however, do not indicate coercion. Do coerced individuals engage in robbery, kidnapping, murder, and a gunfight to the death - all after setting up IEDs to kill and injure as many people as possible? I think not. Even if those doing the coercing had threatened to kill their family members, these two had already performed their assigned task, so committing 'suicide by cop' would have been no more beneficial than surrendering. The surviving brother still has time to spill his guts in order to protect family members *if* that is, indeed, the case...which I find extremely unlikely.

Other than that, what is sofa king costly about setting up that bombing? These guys, offspring of lawyers and one of them an engineer, drove expensive vehicles, so what is the impediment to purchasing pressure cookers, ingredients to make black powder, constructing circuit boards for the triggering devices, and the cell phones to activate them? Backpacks and ball bearings wouldn't increase the cost all that much. Expertise? Elder brother is an engineer, indicative that he's no dummy. Aside from strategically placing their backpacks in trash receptacles and strolling away - acts, BTW, that were documented with surveillance cameras - what else is so frightfully challenging?

Another 'if,' I know, but if there were accomplices, then I hope the best interrogators on the planet are able to extract that information - and by 'best,' I mean without the use of torture, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to everything except putting the overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. You're mixing up a protocol for conducting legal proceedings with a general principle

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

The presumption of innocence is a legal mode of acting. That's all it is. It refers to a weighting of burdens for proof at trial. The person now in custody remains "innocent until proven guilty" for the purposes of criminal legal proceedings, so you really have nothing to complain about and no point.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a general ethic, nor a required belief. And wide discussion of an unconvicted person AS IF he or she in fact committed the acts is not even a violation of "innocent until proven guilty."

[Iggo]

36. ^^^^

This.

[ConcernedCanuk]

94. seen this more than once - ^^^^

.
.
.

what does that mean?

CC

[Iggo]

102. Those are "arrows" pointing up to the post above it.

In this case it means "this right here is the answer to your question."

[ConcernedCanuk]

95. Never expected so much participation in my thread

.
.
.

so I'm going back and studying the replies a little more closely.

This part of your post made me ponder . .

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a general ethic"

well, in my opinion, as some may have gathered,

I think it should be!

CC

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. I shouldrephrase: it really is a general way of behaving, but there are different proof levels

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is merely a legal standard. It refers to the burden or level of proof required before the state can act on your body.

Individuals, and the public in general, have different standards of proof - but anybody an individual believes to have committed a particular act has been proven guilty to the satisfaction of that individual. Similarly, anybody the public generally believes to have committed a particular act has been proven guilty to the satisfaction of most people who compose that public. Put another way, if you ask an individual or group why they believe somebody to be guilty, they will supply (usually good) reasons. The guilt of the accused has been proven sufficient to that forum or individual. Nobody (despite a lot of protestations) decides that X suspect is guilty just on say so. People listen to arguments, and become persuaded.

The supposed problem is that the standard of proof is only sufficient in a court of law. So, you ask individuals and the public to suspend their own judgments until that particular procedure takes place. There are certainly benefits to that, but you're really taking context specific forms of proof and mixing them up. The high standard in a court applies precisely because the state can act on the body of the accused. Whether I, as a private citizen, believe Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty of these acts, by contrast, has relatively little effect on Mr. Tsarnaev. The standards of proof in court are high because the consequences are severe. You're asking people to transpose those very high standards to situations where the consequences are minor, if they exist at all (discussing the case in a bar, for instance).

[NutmegYankee]

99. +1

Somebody actually gets it!

[L0oniX]

18. "Innocent until proven guilty"??? Not on DU.

I've endured the attacks over that one before ...here.

[WinkyDink]

23. It depends on the case, sadly.

[Cirque du So-What]

25. Please, come down off your cross

We can use the wood.

[L0oniX]

44. Please get out of grade school soon.

[Drale]

19. He's innocent until groven guilty about the bombings

but he and his brother had a firefight with police and killed a security officer, so he's guilty of those crimes at least.

[MOTRDemocrat]

24. I'm not on the jury. nt

[99Forever]

26. Did you miss something?

As a matter of fact you did. It's called the real world.

[octothorpe]

29. What exactly are you taking issue with?

That one was arrested and the other killed? That their photos were put out to the public? That people are talking about them and trying to figure out specific motives? That people don't end every sentence about it with a "assuming they are guilty"?

Is there some other way you think people should be acting?

[ConcernedCanuk]

38. Taking issue - you bet

.
.
.

One question I can answer without thinking a whole lot:

"Is there some other way you think people should be acting?"

You bet!

People have been wrongly accused, imprisoned, beheaded, burnt at the stake, hung, shot, electrocuted, etc., for millenniums.

Be nice to see it stop, but I have no expectations that will ever happen in my lifetime, or for that matter - in the future history of mankind.

Be nice to see it slow down quite a bit.

"Acting"

yeah - don't be in such a hurry to "avenge" -

as I said in a post further up - there's gotta be a whole lot more to this bombing than just 2 guys with a beef.

This was organized by people with power, money and information.

I think people should be skeptical when the authorities say "it's over"

Had a hard time finding anything else on tv up here besides coverage of the Boston bombings for the last few days.

I only get 8 channels where I'm living - and sometimes coverage was on 7 of them - so I've had an overexposure to the television media, as well as following the threads here on DU.

I did not create this thread on an uninformed whim.

CC

[Gravitycollapse]

30. Innocence until guilt is proven should be supported in the public.

Instead we have an abundance of people trying to argue that such thinking only applies to the legal system. Which is somewhat true. But there is a reason why the legal system follows such a thing. And for that very reason we should all presume the suspect is innocent until his guilt is demonstrated in a court of law.

[RILib]

31. nobody's getting together a lynch mob

Let justice take it's course.

But confessing to the carjack victim, throwing explosives out of the car at the police, abandoning a backpack at the scene of the first explosion just before the explosion....

Plus one of the other people accused hopped right down to a police station to clear things up. What would anyone have done?

[Zorra]

33. Maybe poor Dzhokhar was just spaced on some X and the chronic, wandered off, and

found himself asleep in a boat in a strange neighborhood with cops and helicopters surrounding him, and thought, "Wow, WTF?".

It could happen.


It really does very strongly appear to me that Dzhokhar is guilty of some very serious errors in judgment and action.

Yes, it is up to the courts to decide if his actions are worthy of a criminal conviction.

[jmg257]

34. Maybe you missed where the 2 asses got into several firefights with police?

Hard to take "suspects" into custody in a nice way when they are in a vehicle they robbed and are shooting at you and tossing grenades your way.

Don't want to die, or even be thought guilty? Don't murder/rob/shoot/blow up other people.

[ksoze]

37. You need to read the news more often

No trial yet, suspect in custody. Which part is eluding you?

[riderinthestorm]

40. Well we KNOW they are guilty of a few things for sure: murdering a police officer

and the serious wounding of another.

Carjacking.

Possession of illegal firearms.

That you care to remain adamant about the presumption of innocence about the bombings is cute. But fine, if you want to draw strict lines I can tell this matters quite a lot to you so I can go along with you that they are "suspects" only for that.

But the other things they've done remain confirmed, indisputable and without a doubt guilty.

[FarCenter]

41. What more proof do you need???

[LovingA2andMI]

42. That's why the words...

SUSPECTED Mass Murderer Terrorist are used. Now let's convict him so he will be forever known as the Mass Murderer Terrorist who's awaiting an execution date.

[ConcernedCanuk]

54. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1947

.
.
.

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.ca/2011/03/listing-of-us-states-without-death.html

Can they execute him anyway?



CC

[bluedigger]

59. The Feds can.

He will be tried on Federal charges, not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[LovingA2andMI]

66. More likely than not...

White Hat Suspect #2, the Suspected Mass Murderer Terrorist will be charged with a Federal Crime, making the charges eligible for the death penalty.

[just1voice]

43. You missed the part where we set up torture camps for innocents

It was during the criminal Bush years when capturing, torturing and jailing innocents became "in vogue". We were all told to just ignore it and "look forward" because accountability and democracy are "off the table" because "we're at war" in the "homeland".

[truedelphi]

46. And of course, now those innocents can be us.

Some of us present some very inconvenient truths to the PTB. Some of us are not on the Mainstream sides of the matter of the continuing drug war. Some of us are not on the side of the Big Financial Players being "Too Big TO Fail," or "Too Big to Jail."

I want my rights as guaranteed in the nation's Constitution. And if that makes me some far out radical zombie, so be it.

I also plan on sending off a Freedom of Information letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. i have several questions for them.

[ConcernedCanuk]

48. I did't miss gitmo , nor the "extraordinary renditions"

.
.
.

Besides, it was Bush 1 that started the idea - -
_________________________________________________________________________

February, 1972. The George H.W. Bush administration holds that detainees are not entitled to any U.S. rights because they are being held in Cuban territory.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm
_________________________________________________________________________


and I do not believe the admin has ceased all such activity.

Just hiding it better.

for now.

CC

[Art_from_Ark]

83. February 1972?

That would have been the Nixon administration. They probably meant 1992.

[ConcernedCanuk]

86. You are correct, 1992

.
.
.

I checked the link I posted

it was a typo - the date jumps form 90's 70's 90's

from the link:
______________________________________________________________________________

November, 1991. The Naval Base starts being used as a prison.

October, 1991. During the Fourth Communist Party Congress in Santiago de Cuba, planes and helicopters from Guantánamo Naval Base violate Cuban airspace in a show of force.

February, 1972. The George H.W. Bush administration holds that detainees are not entitled to any U.S. rights because they are being held in Cuban territory.

1994. Thousands of Haitian refugees are detained at Guantánamo.

From: Immigration and Asylum, From 1900 to the Present, Volume 1: Entries A to I, Matthew J. Gibney and Randall Hansen, Editors; “By November (1994) there were some 30,000 Cubans in addition to 20,000 Haitians being held at the base, at an estimated cost of $1 million per day. U.S. policy toward the Cubans was initially that they would have to return to their homes in order to apply for admittance to the United States. Nevertheless, on May 2, 1995, the William Clinton administration announced that the 21,000 Cubans still at Guantanamo would be allowed entry to the United States.”

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm
______________________________________________________________________________

looks like an obvious typo -

and if I'd thought about it,

I would have realized that Bush 1 wasn't in the WH in the 70's.

Thanks



CC

[scheming daemons]

47. he is at least guilty of carjacking and shooting at cops

[Gravitycollapse]

49. He's suspected of those crimes. He has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

[Cleita]

50. Not only that but he is an American citizen, so even if our government has no respect

for the rights of non-citizens, they should have respect for an American citizen. If not, being a citizen of this country is no better than a citizenship in Simolea.

[Zax2me]

51. Videotape. Video recordings. Innocent until proven is a legal term anyway.

I as an impartial observer can come to my own conclusion someone is guilty or not any time I damn well please.
When I see video evidence of crime, and you want my opinion? I'm going to tell you. not say 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I'm not an idiot, a jury member or the judge.

[Gravitycollapse]

55. Innocent until proven guilty became a legal term precisely because it is philosophically important.

And the public should be as impartial and reasonable as the legal system.

[mother earth]

57. I'm from MA, an hour from Boston, and I assure you, "Innocent til proven guilty." is alive and well.

I am so heartened the suspect was taken alive. Whatever his role was, he is a 19 year old BOY, and I want to know the truth, as I imagine the rest of us feel.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. Silly Canadian...

That's so antiquated.

[ConcernedCanuk]

64. That be me!

.
.
.

Hi Blue,

long time no see.



CC

[Blue_In_AK]

78. We're going to be passing through your country next month

(the Yukon) on our way to Haines to catch the ferry to Juneau and Sitka. I love Canada. In fact, I think Alaska should be a Canadian province.

[ConcernedCanuk]

79. " In fact, I think Alaska should be a Canadian province" - hmmm

.
.
.

so do we!

don't tell Sarah that . .

CC

[Blue_In_AK]

80. Haven't seen Sarah in ages.

I think she moved to Arizona.

[ConcernedCanuk]

82. Can she see Russia from there?

.
.
.

CC

[Princess Turandot]

60. 'Innocent until proven guilty' relates to the ground rules of our legal system...

which puts the entire burden of proof in a criminal trial on the prosecutor. It mostly means that in court the defendant is not required to prove himself 'not guilty'. (That's a good thing since proving a negative is often hard to do.)

You'll note that when someone is acquitted in a trial, they are declared 'not guilty' meaning that in the eyes of the jurors, the prosecution did not provide them with enough evidence to convict the accused of a specific crime. They are not actually declared 'innocent': It's 'guilt' as defined by a set of agreed upon, artificial rules, not a statement of physical reality.

[SoCalDem]

61. The theory is this..

A crime is committed.
We have the consequence of the crime
Someone did it
Eye-witnesses may say they saw it and that is the person over there who did it.
Justice system says ...prove it in court..

The presumption of innocence changes once we have video, because we no longer have to use trace evidence/eye witness testimony/supposition

Crimes committed on camera (especially with the whole world watching) still have to use the framework of "innocent until proven guilty", but it's more of a formality than anything else.

What you "missed" is akin to UK jurists still wearing the "wigs" because it's a custom.. crimes committed on camera getting the "innocent" treatment is as vestigial as that is.

[ConcernedCanuk]

67. Remember this guy?

.
.
.



and this one?



ok

responding to the content in your post now.

"still wearing the "wigs" because it's a custom.. crimes committed on camera getting the "innocent" treatment is as vestigial "

Not quite sure how it is working in the USA, but up here, even with video, statements and so on, a person still gets a trial.

I did not "miss" anything methinks, I see the vids, up to an hour ago on our tv up here -

We have "extenuating circumstances" - coercion, threats, anxiety, insanity, temporary or permanent(although this was definitely a premeditated act) etc..

Look at 911 - the investigation, which I followed in the inquiries afterwards gave me no confidence in the USA judicial system, especially when it involves the Administration.

After 911, with NO proof, what did the Admin do?

They bombed the shit out of IRAQ!

just a little off target on that one methinks.

correction -

WAY off target.

And I still believe these guys, if in fact they did it,

were the "point men" of something much larger.

That is my opinion.

CC

[SoCalDem]

68. They get a trial here too, but public opinion being what it is

it's pretty much a foregone conclusion..

and many clever criminals in the US still go free all the time..

Here's a few gifs of the little guy above

[ConcernedCanuk]

72. " it's pretty much a foregone conclusion"

.
.
.

I cannot disagree with your statement,

and as I said in another post in this thread,

I'll be very surprised if the surviving brother lives to trial.

Don't have to explain that one methinks.

oh

this is my favorite one



never seen that one before.

CC

[marshall]

62. You're confusing the court system and the law enforcement

He hasn't entered the court phase yet. If and when he does, then you can argue that anything he said cannot be used in his prosecution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. It's where it's always been - in the courtroom, not outside it.

We don't have to believe that they are innocent and proven guilty, we just have to respect their rights as though we did.

[backscatter712]

65. I'm not in the jury or in the courtroom for his trial - I can speculate.

Don't worry. He'll get his trial.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

73. conviction in court of public opinion upheld!!

Is that your point? Is he in jail?

I think you're making the too common error of conflating the two.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ARGUING THAT DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV IS INNOCENT

I have spent my entire life arguing unpopular opinions. I truly believe with all my heart that God put me on this earth to argue unpopular opinions. But - I need to also be convinced to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that my unpopular opinion is right.

if ANYONE has ANY evidence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent - PLEASE post this information now!! IF anyone can convince me of his innocence in these charges I will be his most zealous defender - I promise.

[Codeine]

75. And when the evidence is presented to the jury that will be the standard to which it is held.

That's the extent of what that phrase is about.

[seabeyond]

77. "Did I miss something?" yes. you did. du is not a court of law. that simple. nt

[DCBob]

84. From a legal standpoint he is innocent until proven guilty.

but clearly there is tons of evidence that warrant his arrest and being charged with numerous crimes. Thats the way the system works.. but of course you knew that.

[alphafemale]

85. So we should let the child murdering, blower off of legs, little fuck walk without bond...maybe?

What are you suggesting?

Exactly?

[ConcernedCanuk]

87. Nope - definitively do not let him walk, - no bail.

.
.
.

You may not realize that much, if not most, of our tv shows, be it movies, news, sports, etc., come from the USA.

I just finished watching an interview with the Mayor of Chicago 2 minutes ago,

that being Mayor Menino -

where he stated "I do believe that the younger brother was brainwashed by his older brother"

He's a teenager, easily influenced, and peer pressure can be overwhelming.

His medical condition is serious enough(so we are told),

that no one has been able to interrogate him.

kid is in need of an empathetic shrink, not trained interrogators.

If he's lucky, he'll die b4 USA's "justice" system gets at him.

that's my opinion.

CC

[alphafemale]

93. as such he will be spared the drip...drip....drip of death.

Most likely this "kid" will not get the death penalty.

Life sentence? Absolutely.

[joshcryer]

88. The court of public opinion is incapable of finding someone guilty by the rule of law.

People can say what they want.

If the guy lives he'll get his day in court.

[geek tragedy]

89. You missed the fact that DU is not a court of law.

Which is why we pronounce people like Cheney, Kissinger, and Tsatnaev guilty of murder and war crimes with no ill consequence.

[ConcernedCanuk]

90. Really! - I DID miss that, silly me!

.
.
.



CC

[geek tragedy]

92. I agree. nt

[BootinUp]

91. He will get a fair trial but all that means is it won't go well for him.nt

[whatchamacallit]

96. Because he's guilty, right?

Since we all know he is from the TV, why waste the time and money?

[ConcernedCanuk]

97. Note to alerter and jury.

.
.
.

Just noticed the hidden post.

I would not have alerted or voted to hide Zoeisright's post.

Had no intention of responding to it.

Yes, it was inflammatory, but ya may have noticed,

I do not get involved in obvious baiting.

I can handle it.

CC

[stlsaxman]

98. "there has been no trial yet, or even charges laid-" HE'S IN THE F##$ING HOSPITAL!!!

uh... hello????