Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (23444)	7/10/2000 4:20:25 PM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Except in cases of vigilante "justice", when is conviction not required to prove guilt? when conviction is necessary to legally establish the fact of guilt Mine was no "small" point or of little consequence. It was actually your position of colloquial usage, a position never put forth by anyone except you, that is insignificant in the usage of the term.

To: Neocon who wrote (23444)	7/10/2000 4:20:58 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

No. Murder is a felony in most parts. If x murders y, is x a murderer only post conviction? Obviously not. x is a murderer and a felon from the moment of the murder, even if he "gets away with it". Blacks's makes clear that conviction is not an element in being a felon. lawdope is confused between "felon" and "convicted felon". As I pointed out earlier, if lawdope knew what he was talking about, there would be no term "convicted felon" because that would be redundant.