Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
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.
|
I think we are just speaking two different languages. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that I would convict fallon of anything as of right now. If I had to decide right this minute whether Fallon was guilty or innocent, I would find him innocent. I wouldn't sentence a man to be punished without overwhelming evidence of his guilt. As of right now, I don't know the facts of the case and I am not on a jury deciding Fallon's fate. If I was deciding his fate, I would not convict him unless the evidence showed that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As of right now, I don't even know what the evidence is. So I agree with you about not convicting someone before hearing the evidence. However, we are not deciding his fate on this message board. We are simply discussing the case. All I was saying was that if I am going to be realistic, I have to assume that the authorities have some fairly strong evidence against Fallon. They did an extensive investigation. That does not mean that I am in favor of convicting Fallon before I hear the evidence.
I think I probably misunderstood what you were saying. You were probably sayong the same thing that I am saying: That we should give Fallon the benefit of the doubt until we hear the evidence. We should respect the notion of innocnet until proven guilty. If that's what you are saying, then I agree with you. However, that is different from saying that you actually believe that he is innocent. If you are saying that you actually believe that he is innocent, then I would have to think that you think the investigators messed up. Although you never actually accused the investigators of messing up, if you actually think that Fallon is innocent, then I would have to assume that you belive the investigators messed up. Why else wold they be trying an innocent man? I think that was where our misunderstanding was. I thought you were saying that you actually believe he is innocent, but in hindsight I think you were simply saying that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.