Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: RJC2006 who wrote (17191)	12/4/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) of 67261

LOL you're making it up as you go. Juries are regularly instructed not to bring back a verdict of guilty unless it is based on the evidence presented. Evidence is regularly blocked by the court as inadmissable. The judge can instruct jurors to disregard something that gets presented. Prosecuters often just can't put their hands on the evidence they need to convict because they can't find it or it is destroyed, or it doesn't exist (like an eye witness or confession). The idea is to go on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Not proven innocence until proven guilty. So if YOU want to presume somebody is innocent, go ahead. That doesn't prove anything. <<you might try hitting the law books>> mmm...I don't think I'd have to read past the preface in intro to law 101 for remedial readers. If you want to go around saying every time guilt can't be established in court the person is proven innocent, go ahead. Don't talk to any one representing the legal system about this without your Ronald McDonald outfit on though, or they wont get it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next