Why do Republicans hate "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Rustic]

The Clintons legacy

 

[hadit]

Was he proven a "gangbanger" in a court of law or is that just the new "******"?

What crimes do ******* have to commit to be executed in the street without a trial?

Again. There are a lot of very bad people, and people who do bad things, who have never been caught or convicted for their crimes. Does that mean they didn't commit crimes? Nope. We are allowed to evaluate people based on their merits (or lack of) and to respond accordingly. If you're doing stupid shit with stupid people, just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean that you didn't do it. And we are not compelled to treat thugs who aren't in prison right at this moment as if they pose no risk.

They do pose a risk, and we will continue to shun them, and they will continue to get shot by cops, and by people who are defending themselves from their stupid criminal asses.

Classic case in point, OJ Simpson. We had a year long trial in which he was aquitted, then a civil trial in which he was found liable for the wrongful death of the two. Now, either he killed them or he did not kill them. In this case, the courts ruled differently because of the differing standards of evidence. Just noting that court proceedings do not necessarily answer all the questions.

Precisely but I actually agree with that.

We aren't allowed to hang OJ Simpson for murder because a civil court found him "liable".

Yet the public cannot be condemned for stating that he killed his wife and her friend. IOW, we believe all sorts of things that are true or very likely to be true without a trial taking place, and sometimes in spite of a trial taking place. You seem to, for instance, believe that Michael Brown was murdered, despite a trial clearly stating that he was not.

If they are damaging his career based on NO conviction WHATSOEVER then that is LYING.

You agree Republicans are LIARS?

How are they lying if he was found liable for their deaths?

 

[Rustic]

Was he proven a "gangbanger" in a court of law or is that just the new "******"?

What crimes do ******* have to commit to be executed in the street without a trial?

Again. There are a lot of very bad people, and people who do bad things, who have never been caught or convicted for their crimes. Does that mean they didn't commit crimes? Nope. We are allowed to evaluate people based on their merits (or lack of) and to respond accordingly. If you're doing stupid shit with stupid people, just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean that you didn't do it. And we are not compelled to treat thugs who aren't in prison right at this moment as if they pose no risk.

They do pose a risk, and we will continue to shun them, and they will continue to get shot by cops, and by people who are defending themselves from their stupid criminal asses.

Except the Medical Examiner testified that Brown was shot in the Back.

Source?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=3

You do understand, don't you, that the article you referenced includes the diagram from the autopsy that clearly shows all of Brown's wounds were in the front of his body, and that it doesn't state that "the Medical Examiner testified that Brown was shot in the Back"?

Apparently Selective outrage is his game...

 

[hadit]

The Clintons legacy

Did you notice how he looked in a different direction from where his finger was pointing? Try it sometime. Make an emphatic statement to someone, pointing your finger to add emphasis. Where are you looking?

Then try it looking away, like Bubba was doing. His body language indicates lying.

 

[Rustic]

The Clintons legacy

Did you notice how he looked in a different direction from where his finger was pointing? Try it sometime. Make an emphatic statement to someone, pointing your finger to add emphasis. Where are you looking?

Then try it looking away, like Bubba was doing. His body language indicates lying.

No doubt, his perversion knows no bounds.

 

[peach174]

How about the "hands up, don't shoot" lie the Dims have been telling for over a year now?

The Medical Examiner said it is true, that Brown was shot in the back.

But you don't care for facts do you.

Those facts were presented by the Medical Examiner in the Grand Jury, but the Grand Jury still acquitted.

Brown was a gangbanger and he deserved what he got, your pussy still hurt'n. Huh

Was he proven a "gangbanger" in a court of law or is that just the new "******"?

What crimes do ******* have to commit to be executed in the street without a trial?

Again. There are a lot of very bad people, and people who do bad things, who have never been caught or convicted for their crimes. Does that mean they didn't commit crimes? Nope. We are allowed to evaluate people based on their merits (or lack of) and to respond accordingly. If you're doing stupid shit with stupid people, just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean that you didn't do it. And we are not compelled to treat thugs who aren't in prison right at this moment as if they pose no risk.

They do pose a risk, and we will continue to shun them, and they will continue to get shot by cops, and by people who are defending themselves from their stupid criminal asses.

Except the Medical Examiner testified that Brown was shot in the Back.

No that was a false report by the Media.

 

[George Costanza]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does this mean we won't be hearing any more malarkey about George Bush committing war crimes or Karl Rove outing Valery Plame? Is this a Christmas miracle that democrats are going to stop claiming guilt without a conviction?

How about the "hands up, don't shoot" lie the Dims have been telling for over a year now?

The Medical Examiner said it is true, that Brown was shot in the back.

But you don't care for facts do you.

Those facts were presented by the Medical Examiner in the Grand Jury, but the Grand Jury still acquitted.

Brown was a gangbanger and he deserved what he got, your pussy still hurt'n. Huh

Was he proven a "gangbanger" in a court of law or is that just the new "******"?

What crimes do ******* have to commit to be executed in the street without a trial?

Present a threat of serious bodily harm or death to a police officer.

 

[bripat9643]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

The public isn't required to presume anyone is innocent, only our justice system. Invoking "the presumption of innocence" is just a sleazy liberal propaganda technique whenever their guy is wriggling on the hook and he is guilty as hell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

It's good enough for the "right?"

Tell me, how do you feel about the Democrats wanting to deny people their constitutional right to firearms simply because some bureaucrat put them on the No Fly list????

 

[Rustic]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

All dictatorships are products of socialism/progressivism.

 

[George Costanza]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

All dictatorships are products of socialism/progressivism.

One of the main thrusts of neo-conservatism is maximum punishment for those accused of crime, diminishing the rights of criminal defendants and expanding the power of the police. These factors are also common to a dictatorship. Last time I looked, today's conservatives do not seem to be espousing "socialism/progressivism."

 

[Stephanie]

Is this person FOR REAL? Who just made a thread saying if a company won't bake a cake for a homosexual they should be put out of business. now is that someone who claims they are for Innocent until proven guilty. this person is twisted flaming troll. nothing more. look how many fell into his trap. good gawd

 

[The Rabbi]

How long do we have to listen to their hypocritical shameful, disgusting accusation that Bill Clinton is a rapist, or the Clintons are murderers or corrupt embezzlers?

Prove it in a court of law, or just shut the hell up.

Go fuck yourself.
The court of public opinion is just as valid as a court of law. ANd the rules of evidence are much less.

 

[Iceweasel]

How long do we have to listen to their hypocritical shameful, disgusting accusation that Bill Clinton is a rapist, or the Clintons are murderers or corrupt embezzlers?

Prove it in a court of law, or just shut the hell up.

Both ends of the spectrum jump to conclusions when someone from "the other side" does something bad.

All. The. Time.
.

Don't care, Democrats aren't trying to murder millions in wars for oil, or steal health care away from the poor to pay for their retirements.

LOL, you forgot to mention raping your puppy.

 

[Stephanie]

Everyone needs to put this thing on Ignore. the more we pay it any attention the more vulgar and annoying it gets. put it our of misery

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

All dictatorships are products of socialism/progressivism.

One of the main thrusts of neo-conservatism is maximum punishment for those accused of crime, diminishing the rights of criminal defendants and expanding the power of the police. These factors are also common to a dictatorship. Last time I looked, today's conservatives do not seem to be espousing "socialism/progressivism."

Oh please. Your second place contender for the Democrat ticket is an admitted Socialist. Your current leader was supported by the US Communist party both elections.

Republicans are for the rule of law and proper punishment for criminals. You on the left put guys in prisons with cable television, three square meals plus snacks, a workout room, a pool table room, and even a nice quiet room where a criminal can start a family with his wife. Then you say guns are responsible for all the murders we have in this country.

 

[koshergrl]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

All dictatorships are products of socialism/progressivism.

One of the main thrusts of neo-conservatism is maximum punishment for those accused of crime, diminishing the rights of criminal defendants and expanding the power of the police. These factors are also common to a dictatorship. Last time I looked, today's conservatives do not seem to be espousing "socialism/progressivism."

Oh please. Your second place contender for the Democrat ticket is an admitted Socialist. Your current leader was supported by the US Communist party both elections.

Republicans are for the rule of law and proper punishment for criminals. You on the left put guys in prisons with cable television, three square meals plus snacks, a workout room, a pool table room, and even a nice quiet room where a criminal can start a family with his wife. Then you say guns are responsible for all the murders we have in this country.

If they put them in prison at all. They refuse to fund prisons, and insist that the mentally ill can't be imprisoned no matter how nutty they are..and refuse to put them in the nuthouse. They make excuses for criminals, and penalize victims.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How long do we have to listen to their hypocritical shameful, disgusting accusation that Bill Clinton is a rapist, or the Clintons are murderers or corrupt embezzlers?

Prove it in a court of law, or just shut the hell up.

Like OJ being guilty of murder?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal term. People can actually be guilty in reality, regardless of whether or not they're convicted, or even caught. It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad.

As usual, you are dead wrong. The Presumption of Innocence ("Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") is NOT "just a legal term." Rather, it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is what separates us from dictatorships, police states and societies molded after the misguided concepts of the conservative Right.

Without the Presumption of Innocence, we would have no need for trials. The police would be the judge, jury and imposers of penalty all in one. Nice and neat. Why not? We trust the police, don't we? The police would never arrest someone who hasn't done SOMETHING, and that is more than enough for the "good, law-abiding citizens" of the Right.

You'd better thank God for the Presumption of Innocence and not attempt to dismiss it as "just a legal term."

Your final sentence here: "It's a fine point that doesn't make sense to the people who seem to think that the court determines whether or not a person actually did something bad," makes no sense. Right in keeping with your usual blatherings on this message board.

All dictatorships are products of socialism/progressivism.

One of the main thrusts of neo-conservatism is maximum punishment for those accused of crime, diminishing the rights of criminal defendants and expanding the power of the police. These factors are also common to a dictatorship. Last time I looked, today's conservatives do not seem to be espousing "socialism/progressivism."

Oh please. Your second place contender for the Democrat ticket is an admitted Socialist. Your current leader was supported by the US Communist party both elections.

Republicans are for the rule of law and proper punishment for criminals. You on the left put guys in prisons with cable television, three square meals plus snacks, a workout room, a pool table room, and even a nice quiet room where a criminal can start a family with his wife. Then you say guns are responsible for all the murders we have in this country.

None of that in the federal prison system.