vick told NO camp

[ArlJim78]

one side says that what he is accused of is wrong and he should pay the prices for it once due process has run its course.

the other side says what he is accused of is no big deal but since it is against the law he should pay the price once due process has run its course.

the rest is just obfuscation.

no one is advocating a short circuit of his rights. what is appalling though is that there are still people around that would have no problem with dog-fighting being legal because it doesn't bother them.

[Mortimer]

I must chime in with yer basic eloquence.



In short...


....the "innocent until proven guilty" is a jury instruction....I believe.






If it were taken any further ...what sense would this make:





"Mr. INSERT NAME HERE...we are the police and we are arresting you as you are presumed innocent of killing Mr. VICTIM."



"Mr. INSERT NAME HERE...I am the judge and bound you over to the county jail unless you can produce a $2,000,000 cash bond,,,,as we presume you innocent until proven guilty."








So people are allowed to have opinions as to whether a charged person is gulity or not even before they are proven guity,guilty,guilty,guilty.Even the police and judges may assume that innocent person is guilty.



It jist don't git no simpler 'in 'at.

[byalip]

Any one who thinks you're a simple jokester, just along for the ride or a disruptive presence .... should remember this eloquent, logical and well-phrased post.

100 PIES. The best.

It don't git any better 'en this.

See ya later!

[Danzig]

it is a jury instruction that you make no decision one way or the other til all facts are heard, and the trial is over, and the jury has deliberated. we found one guy guilty, the other not guilty. the second guy may well have been guilty, but it was he said, she said, and certainly not shown beyond a REASONABLE doubt. not some doubt, but reasonable. very important!