General Discussion

ConcernedCanuk

(13,509 posts)

67. Remember this guy?

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:44 PM

Apr 2013

.
.
.

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?? [View all] ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 OP

Innocent until proven guilty is how our government should act. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #1

Innocence presumed ONLY during presentation of evidence during a trial kysrsoze Apr 2013 #28

Ah excuse me but in legal circles there was quite a bit of furor over truedelphi Apr 2013 #45

Your diatribe doesn't change the legal definition of presumed innocence kysrsoze Apr 2013 #52

Good point, but subtle. n/t X_Digger Apr 2013 #69

They confessed to the guy they stole the SUV from. GitRDun Apr 2013 #2

We should assume nothing - and most media coverage is slewed. ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #9

I agree we should assume "facts" can be proven wrong. GitRDun Apr 2013 #22

So what the SUV guy says is engraved in granite? Cleita Apr 2013 #53

If you read my post I did not say anything was etched in granite... GitRDun Apr 2013 #56

the part where they started tossing bombs of similar manufacture to those used CBGLuthier Apr 2013 #3

+1 Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #8

Being caught red-handed doesn't change the rights of the accused. After all, we DO WinkyDink Apr 2013 #12

NOT suggesting they are innocent. ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #15

Have the two been sentenced while we weren't looking? X_Digger Apr 2013 #70

"The public ... has no duty to maintain a presumption of innocence" ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #71

Gee I dunno, you think some people here are letting their emotions Rex Apr 2013 #4

Oh, true enough, and I'm usually the first to point out the Internet bit. But HYPOCRISY WinkyDink Apr 2013 #14

He will get a trial Bjorn Against Apr 2013 #5

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term Marrah_G Apr 2013 #6

I think he's the criminal, but when I heard the COPS call him "the killer" and "the perp," well, WinkyDink Apr 2013 #21

cops have used those terms in practice since before you were born marions ghost Apr 2013 #101

See, it's like you're pretending these dudes were just picked up off the street for no reason. Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #7

Guess what? Those "facts" aren't, until established in a court of law. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #20

so should he be let go until "facts" are established beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom? onenote Apr 2013 #76

What point are you trying to make? Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #10

Right-wing demagoguery ( and liberal trepidation) happened. marybourg Apr 2013 #11

Did something happen to it? n/t cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #13

You even put 'suspect' in parentheses? Really? Cirque du So-What Apr 2013 #16

yes, - really ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #27

Why do you (and others) seem convinced there has to be more behind this? octothorpe Apr 2013 #32

Cool! A conspiracy theorist! Katashi_itto Apr 2013 #35

You didn't address the possibility of accomplices in your OP Cirque du So-What Apr 2013 #39

You're mixing up a protocol for conducting legal proceedings with a general principle alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #17

^^^^ Iggo Apr 2013 #36

seen this more than once - ^^^^ ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #94

Those are "arrows" pointing up to the post above it. Iggo Apr 2013 #102

Never expected so much participation in my thread ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #95

I shouldrephrase: it really is a general way of behaving, but there are different proof levels alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #100

+1 NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #99

"Innocent until proven guilty"??? Not on DU. L0oniX Apr 2013 #18

It depends on the case, sadly. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #23

Please, come down off your cross Cirque du So-What Apr 2013 #25

Please get out of grade school soon. L0oniX Apr 2013 #44

He's innocent until groven guilty about the bombings Drale Apr 2013 #19

I'm not on the jury. nt MOTRDemocrat Apr 2013 #24

Did you miss something? 99Forever Apr 2013 #26

What exactly are you taking issue with? octothorpe Apr 2013 #29

Taking issue - you bet ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #38

Innocence until guilt is proven should be supported in the public. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #30

nobody's getting together a lynch mob RILib Apr 2013 #31

Maybe poor Dzhokhar was just spaced on some X and the chronic, wandered off, and Zorra Apr 2013 #33

Maybe you missed where the 2 asses got into several firefights with police? jmg257 Apr 2013 #34

You need to read the news more often ksoze Apr 2013 #37

Well we KNOW they are guilty of a few things for sure: murdering a police officer riderinthestorm Apr 2013 #40

What more proof do you need??? FarCenter Apr 2013 #41

That's why the words... LovingA2andMI Apr 2013 #42

Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1947 ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #54

The Feds can. bluedigger Apr 2013 #59

More likely than not... LovingA2andMI Apr 2013 #66

You missed the part where we set up torture camps for innocents just1voice Apr 2013 #43

And of course, now those innocents can be us. truedelphi Apr 2013 #46

I did't miss gitmo , nor the "extraordinary renditions" ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #48

February 1972? Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #83

You are correct, 1992 ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #86

he is at least guilty of carjacking and shooting at cops scheming daemons Apr 2013 #47

He's suspected of those crimes. He has not been proven guilty in a court of law. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #49

Not only that but he is an American citizen, so even if our government has no respect Cleita Apr 2013 #50

Videotape. Video recordings. Innocent until proven is a legal term anyway. Zax2me Apr 2013 #51

Innocent until proven guilty became a legal term precisely because it is philosophically important. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #55

I'm from MA, an hour from Boston, and I assure you, "Innocent til proven guilty." is alive and well. mother earth Apr 2013 #57

Silly Canadian... Blue_In_AK Apr 2013 #58

That be me! ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #64

We're going to be passing through your country next month Blue_In_AK Apr 2013 #78

" In fact, I think Alaska should be a Canadian province" - hmmm ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #79

Haven't seen Sarah in ages. Blue_In_AK Apr 2013 #80

Can she see Russia from there? ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #82

'Innocent until proven guilty' relates to the ground rules of our legal system... Princess Turandot Apr 2013 #60

The theory is this.. SoCalDem Apr 2013 #61

Remember this guy? ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #67

They get a trial here too, but public opinion being what it is SoCalDem Apr 2013 #68

" it's pretty much a foregone conclusion" ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #72

You're confusing the court system and the law enforcement marshall Apr 2013 #62

It's where it's always been - in the courtroom, not outside it. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #63

I'm not in the jury or in the courtroom for his trial - I can speculate. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #65

conviction in court of public opinion upheld!! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2013 #73

I WOULD LOVE TO BE ARGUING THAT DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV IS INNOCENT Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #74

And when the evidence is presented to the jury that will be the standard to which it is held. Codeine Apr 2013 #75

"Did I miss something?" yes. you did. du is not a court of law. that simple. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #77

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #81

From a legal standpoint he is innocent until proven guilty. DCBob Apr 2013 #84

So we should let the child murdering, blower off of legs, little fuck walk without bond...maybe? alphafemale Apr 2013 #85

Nope - definitively do not let him walk, - no bail. ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #87

as such he will be spared the drip...drip....drip of death. alphafemale Apr 2013 #93

The court of public opinion is incapable of finding someone guilty by the rule of law. joshcryer Apr 2013 #88

You missed the fact that DU is not a court of law. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #89

Really! - I DID miss that, silly me! ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #90

I agree. nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #92

He will get a fair trial but all that means is it won't go well for him.nt BootinUp Apr 2013 #91

Because he's guilty, right? whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #96

Note to alerter and jury. ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #97

"there has been no trial yet, or even charges laid-" HE'S IN THE F##$ING HOSPITAL!!! stlsaxman Apr 2013 #98