Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
You are very foolish if you assume that someone who is arrested is innocent after there has been an extensive invetigation. You think that you know more that the authorities who have investigated the case for months? If you think he is innocent, then you are basically saying that the autorities that did the investigation are either corrupt or incompetent. You ae being hypocrtical. You are judging the authorities as doing a bad job even though you have no evidence of that.
You ae confused about the whole presumption of innocence deal. If you are on a jury, you are suppose to presume innocence until you hear all the facts of the case. At that point, you then need to decide if enough evidence has been presented to find the defendant guilty as charged. It is important for jurors to assume innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because the burden is on the govenrment. If the government does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then jurors must acquit the defendant.
We are not jurors on the Fallon case. We are simply observers. I have no reason to think the autorities have bungled the investigation. If I hear evidence of a bungled investigation, then that would be a different story. As of right now though, I haven't heard anything about a bungled investigation.
|
Rupert.
Let's get this straight.
I'm foolish to assume someone innocent until proven guilty? Right?
Where did I state that the investigators were corrupt or incompetent?
Bring up a quote if you can...
Your words are like something that comes out of my hindend after I've eaten lots of beans...and they stink as bad.
If you are unable to provide that which I've requested, an apology from you is in order.
If you insist on spouting nonsense and are unable to admit your moronic assertions...just do me a favor...ignore all of my posts.
I will do the same with yours from here on out....like fart echoes in a toilet.