• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony Lives In A Church

PerfectStorm

PerfectStorm

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
5,098
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Following recent reports that Casey Anthony might be living in St. Lucie County, online site The Daily Beast is reporting Anthony has taken refuge at Cross Church in Palm City, under the wing of lead Pastor Steve Camp.

Local media outlets descended upon 34th Street in Palm City, where the Christian church is located, on Wednesday night. Police patrolled the grounds' perimeter watching for trespassers.



Michael Wedgwood, 17, said he caught a glimpse of Anthony, 25, receiving a police escort off the property she was rumored to be calling home.
Click to expand...


Casey Anthony: Has reportedly taken refuge at Treasure Coast Church - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

 
MaggieD said:
What bothers me most about this piece is that she's still getting police escorts. What's that about??
Click to expand...

I would ask for police escorts if there were crazy bleeding heart savages making death threats towards me and the police would give it if there was enough evidence to show there was merit in my demands.
 
Hatuey said:
Why are here whereabouts relevant now?
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, the people that believed she got away with it do not want her to be able to carry on her life in a normal way ever again.

Myself, I don't reall have an opinion to it either way as I didn't watch all the evidence presented or hear all the testimony. So for me, I don't really care about her in any way.
 
TheNextEra said:
Right or wrong, the people that believed she got away with it do not want her to be able to carry on her life in a normal way ever again.

Myself, I don't reall have an opinion to it either way as I didn't watch all the evidence presented or hear all the testimony. So for me, I don't really care about her in any way.
Click to expand...

This is why I don't believe in the "tough on crime" nonsense spewed by so many conservatives. If a person is found to be not guilty of murder, there is no reason for the character assassination that comes from all the bleeding heart "think of the children" crowd. A belief in tough sentencing of offenders found guilty by default means a respect for a person's proven innocence.
 
Hatuey said:
This is why I don't believe in the "tough on crime" nonsense spewed by so many conservatives. If a person is found to be not guilty of murder, there is no reason for the character assassination that comes from all the bleeding heart "think of the children" crowd. A belief in tough sentencing of offenders found guilty by default means a respect for a person's proven innocence.
Click to expand...

no, she was not proved innocent. she was judged not guilty, and there is a big difference.
 
Hatuey said:
This is why I don't believe in the "tough on crime" nonsense spewed by so many conservatives. If a person is found to be not guilty of murder, there is no reason for the character assassination that comes from all the bleeding heart "think of the children" crowd. A belief in tough sentencing of offenders found guilty by default means a respect for a person's proven innocence.
Click to expand...
Nobody is proven, or even proven innocent in our legal system. I wouldn't have mentioned it since it seems a bit trite, but you did put it in bold and underlined.:roll:
 
Hatuey said:
This is why I don't believe in the "tough on crime" nonsense spewed by so many conservatives. If a person is found to be not guilty of murder, there is no reason for the character assassination that comes from all the bleeding heart "think of the children" crowd. A belief in tough sentencing of offenders found guilty by default means a respect for a person's proven innocence.
Click to expand...

Uh. No. She was not proven innocent. She was found not guilty. A finding of not guilty simply means that the jury didn't think the state proved its case. As far as the public is concerned? They did prove it. She's an amoral sociopath. Just like Mr. O.J.
 
MaggieD said:
Uh. No. She was not proven innocent. She was found not guilty. A finding of not guilty simply means that the jury didn't think the state proved its case. As far as the public is concerned? They did prove it. She's an amoral sociopath. Just like Mr. O.J.
Click to expand...

So? You can't do anything about it. She's assumed innocent, State has to prove guilt, State did not sufficiently prove guilt. That's it. Done and over. Could she have done it? Of course. But the State failed to makes its case, the jury found her not guilty of the charged crime. Time to move on.
 
I wonder if anyone sees why so many object to terrorist trials for Gitmo inmates.
 
MaggieD said:
Uh. No. She was not proven innocent. She was found not guilty. A finding of not guilty simply means that the jury didn't think the state proved its case. As far as the public is concerned? They did prove it. She's an amoral sociopath. Just like Mr. O.J.
Click to expand...

Meathead said:
Nobody is proven, or even proven innocent in our legal system. I wouldn't have mentioned it since it seems a bit trite, but you did put it in bold and underlined.:roll:
Click to expand...

liblady said:
no, she was not proved innocent. she was judged not guilty, and there is a big difference.
Click to expand...

Semantics is quite a boring subject to me. Is she in jail? No. Was she found guilty? No. Did her lawyers make a case for her innocence? Apparently they made a strong enough case that the state couldn't convict her. Want to try her again for the same crime? You can't. As far as I'm concerned: She was proven innocent.
 
Ikari said:
So? You can't do anything about it. She's assumed innocent, State has to prove guilt, State did not sufficiently prove guilt. That's it. Done and over. Could she have done it? Of course. But the State failed to makes its case, the jury found her not guilty of the charged crime. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

You remind me of: "So?? Sew buttons on your underwear!"

She has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. She is not assumed innocent. The legal system doesn't "assume." I was correcting Hat's bolded and underlined "proven innocent." No. No, she wasn't.
 
MaggieD said:
You remind me of: "So?? Sew buttons on your underwear!"

She has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. She is not assumed innocent. The legal system doesn't "assume." I was correcting Hat's bolded and underlined "proven innocent." No. No, she wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact it is the very basis of our legal system. You are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And for ****'s sake, who cares about all the god damned semantics. Sometimes people on this site are worse than those bratty 16 year olds you see on MTv crying about their party. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick; I don't know if I can deal with you folk today.
 
She should try livin' in a car. haha. So wrong.



Hatuey said:
Why are here whereabouts relevant now?
Click to expand...

I remember a poster here getting involved with a tracking network. Perhaps this is his doing.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
You remind me of: "So?? Sew buttons on your underwear!"

She has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

The court of public opinion? Too bad that's not a real court and the only one that matters is this one:

Courtroom.jpg


She is not assumed innocent.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that was one of the pillars of our justice system. That people are assumed to be innocent until they're proven to be guilty? But wait, what if you try them and can't prove that they are guilty? Are they now "proven" not guilty?

The legal system doesn't "assume." I was correcting Hat's bolded and underlined "proven innocent." No. No, she wasn't.
Click to expand...

Lol, semantics is thick with you.
 
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, in fact it is the very basis of our legal system. You are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And for ****'s sake, who cares about all the god damned semantics. Sometimes people on this site are worse than those bratty 16 year olds you see on MTv.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently you care about semantics. However, this isn't a question of semantics. This is a case of being outright wrong. A finding of not guilty has nothing to do with being found innocent and everything to do with the state not proving its case.

O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial. If that meant he was innocent, he never would have lost the civil one. It's a very important distinction.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, apparently you care about semantics. However, this isn't a question of semantics. This is a case of being outright wrong. A finding of not guilty has nothing to do with being found innocent and everything to do with the state not proving its case.

O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial. If that meant he was innocent, he never would have lost the civil one. It's a very important distinction.
Click to expand...

Of course being found not guilty doesn't prove innocence. But you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That innocence is not proven, it is set specifically as the starting point. The individual is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
 
MaggieD said:
Tell that to O.J. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

Tell OJ that the court of opinion is not a real court? I'm pretty sure he could google it just like you could have if you didn't spend so much time playing semantics on this forum. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows considering he walked out of court after the verdict as a free man.
 
MaggieD said:
Tell that to O.J. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

yeah, tell that to OJ. Did he go to jail for murder? No. Guess the real court room is all that matters. He was found financially liable under a system which has much relaxed conditions for "guilt" than a criminal court; yes.
 
"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof. This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow.

Presumed innocent of a crime that you've been accused of doesn't mean all doubt removed, only reasonable doubt. But if acquitted you are presumed by the Law to be innocent of said crime. Being sued in a civil court is another venue of litigation and doesn't mean you are criminally liable just civilly. In which case they don't have to meet such a strict "burden of proof" as is necessary in a criminal case.
 
I feel a 70-100 page thread coming along where we beat the semantic dead horse over whether or not being not guilty is the same as innocent.
 
Hatuey said:
Tell OJ that the court of opinion is not a real court? I'm pretty sure he could google it just like you could have if you didn't spend so much time playing semantics on this forum. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows considering he walked out of court after the verdict as a free man.
Click to expand...
It is the quite absurd to say that someone is proven innocent when he is found not guilty. It is even more absurd to write that someone is proven innocent. Neither OJ nor Anthony proved themselves innocent. They could not possibly have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom