• 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!

Michael Moore Pays Bail for Juilan Assange

X Factor said:
Wouldn't this retort really only makes sense if we were talking about Iraqi patriots?
Click to expand...

Apparently Julian Assange is an anti-American scumbag for showing the world the cruelty implemented against innocents by American forces
 
jamesrage said:
Its possible that the alleged victim is lying so they can try to get something on Assange. You can't really prove rape with physical evidence. All a DNA test would prove is that the alleged rapist semen was found in the alleged victim.Which doesn't prove rape. Its like a finger print on a shell casing, it doesn't prove you fired the gun in a crime
Click to expand...
It doesn't? That would be pretty compelling evidence to me.
 
CriticalThought said:
The alleged victims.

No matter who it was or what they allegedly did, I would see it the same way.

Innocent until proven guilty. Good concept. Look it up.
Click to expand...
What I've seen is that "alleged" usually means guilty.
 
X Factor said:
It doesn't? That would be pretty compelling evidence to me.
Click to expand...

Why would it be compelling evidence? All it proves is that the alleged victim and the alleged rapist had sexual intercourse or the alleged victim a used a turkey baster. It doesn't prove if the sexual intercourse was consensual or rape or that someone forcefully shoved a turkey baster in the alleged victim. Again its like a finger print on a shell casing.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Why would it be compelling evidence? All it proves is that the alleged victim and the alleged rapist had sexual intercourse or the alleged victim a used a turkey baster. It doesn't prove if the sexual intercourse was consensual or rape or that someone forcefully shoved a turkey baster in the alleged victim.
Click to expand...
Pardon the misunderstanding, I meant the fingerprints on the bullet.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Alleged means declared but not proven. If you think it means guilty, then you need to buy a new dictionary.
Click to expand...
No, I know the dictionary definition is. What I'm saying is that, many times, "alleged" guilt turns out to be actual guilt.
 
X Factor said:
Pardon the misunderstanding, I meant the fingerprints on the bullet.
Click to expand...

A finger print on the bullet doesn't prove you were the last person who touched the bullet. It doesn't prove you loaded the bullet.It doesn't prove you fired the weapon. All it proves is that you touched the bullet. And from what I understand shell casings are often reused which could have fingerprints.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
No, I know the dictionary definition is. What I'm saying is that, many times, "alleged" guilt turns out to be actual guilt.
Click to expand...
Doesnt matter. The prosecution still has to prove it's case against Assange. Put yourself in his shoes, would you want everyone to just shrug and say "Well, most everybody else that has been "alleged" to do something actually did it, so let's skip the trial and bang him up for life."

Declaring him guilty or innocent before evidence has been heard demonstrates a desire to see a specific outcome that boosts one's personal viewpoint and a disregard for what ACTUALLY happened.
 
jamesrage said:
A finger print on the bullet doesn't prove you were the last person who touched the bullet. It doesn't prove you loaded the bullet.It doesn't prove you fired the weapon. All it proves is that you touched the bullet. And from what I understand shell casings are often reused which could have fingerprints.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that any murder trial where the defendant was found guilty because of fingerprint evidence on the shell casing, the guilty verdict should be tossed?
 
I don't think I've heard a single person accurately use the notion of patriotism. Somehow the vague notion of "supporting troops", whatever that means, is patriotic, but saying good things about an investigative filmmaker is not. Somehow dead civilians is fine, so long as they're not "patriots". The use of this term frankly disgusts me. Declaring one side of an argument to be "anti-American", as if somehow there really are people in this country who sit around and scheme about ways to destroy the country. No one does that. The side opposite yours actually thinks their way is better, and neither is unpatriotic.

The only unpatriotic thing is silencing the discussion. The US is founded on open, transparent discussion and unfettered access to the political process. EVERY opinion is equally valid with every other one, and intelligent discussion and research will show the correct way to proceed. Stepping up and putting oneself on the line to better the nation... that's as patriotic as it gets. And do to it to better the whole world, that's just plain moral. I am, of course, referring to talk and communication, not violence.

But seriously, stop with this "your side is anti-America" or "you're unpatriotic for thinking this". We're lucky in this country that there are no kings to whom one must adhere. Even capitalism isn't a necessary part of America. The only things that are, are "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

That's it. Everything else is negotiable. Stop with this anti-patriotism crap. It's a lie, and it's insulting.
 
Whovian said:
So, you're saying that any murder trial where the defendant was found guilty because of fingerprint evidence on the shell casing, the guilty verdict should be tossed?
Click to expand...

If that was the only thing then yes.
 
Whovian said:
So, you're saying that any murder trial where the defendant was found guilty because of fingerprint evidence on the shell casing, the guilty verdict should be tossed?
Click to expand...

By itself, no, that would not be sufficient evidence for a conviction. That is one piece of circumstantial evidence. The requirements for "beyond a reasonable doubt" is WAY beyond that.
 
Ikari said:
Meh, he's rich, he can afford it. I don't really care too much.
Click to expand...
"Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail," Moore said in a statement posted online.
Click to expand...
FOX News - Home

I think this quote from Moore-on is hilarious. For him $20k doesn't even approach his food bill for the week and he talks about it as if he's funding a small nation. LOL
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
So, you're saying that any murder trial where the defendant was found guilty because of fingerprint evidence on the shell casing, the guilty verdict should be tossed?
Click to expand...

So are you seriously trying to contend that a finger print on a shell casing is in and of itself beyond reasonable doubt? If there were any murder trial in which the defendant was found guilty on the basis of a fingerprint on a shell casing alone; then of course it should be tossed. That's not beyond a reasonable doubt at that point. You're going to need more evidence.
 
It's up to the jury whether or not fingerprints on a casing that came from a murder weapon is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it likely would be.
 
X Factor said:
It's up to the jury whether or not fingerprints on a casing that came from a murder weapon is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it likely would be.
Click to expand...

It's up to the grand jury and the DA to prosecute. But no DA is stupid enough (and one would have to be hella-stupid to believe that route) to try to make a prosecution of a crime based on a finger print on a casing alone. One cannot be so stupid as to believe that somehow 1 finger print on a bullet can definitively point to anything other than the person having been in contact with that bullet at some time. That's the only proof positive thing you can say. You can use that finger print in association with other evidence to so that they had the gun and motive and were at the scene of the crime at the time. And the accumulation of all that data and proof can then start to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But in and of itself, no it doesn't and no one should be dumb enough to believe it could as stand alone evidence.
 
X Factor said:
It's up to the jury whether or not fingerprints on a casing that came from a murder weapon is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it likely would be.
Click to expand...
I do not know much about firearms but I do know that many different firearms use the same kind of round. A shell can not tell which of these various compatible firearms fired that round. A finger print on the shell alone does not tell your who fired the weapon, what was used to fire the bullet, who loaded the bullet and etc.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Really? any evidence of this or are you calling possible rape victims liars?
Click to expand...

... Did you actually read what the case is about? There's about as much evidence to say he raped anyone as there is to say he didn't. It's a he said, she said situation.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Alleged sex offender.

It's a good thing you aren't on his jury. Apparantly you have found him guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Sweden rarely ever uses juries, and they would not be used in such a case.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Mostly killed by other iraqis, Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Iraqis we financed and armed or the ones that wouldn't be killing anyone if we hadn't invaded?
 
[
X Factor said:
he has no trouble saying I shouldn't be on the jury because I've pre-judged the sex offender.
Click to expand...

You've pre-judged someone accused of being a sex offender. When you issue pre-conceived notions to an individual who hasn't been proven guilty, you have no business on a jury. What part of that fact do you struggle with... perhaps I can help.
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
[

You've pre-judged someone accused of being a sex offender. When you issue pre-conceived notions to an individual who hasn't been proven guilty, you have no business on a jury. What part of that fact do you struggle with... perhaps I can help.
Click to expand...
You know what's funny? I've sat on like 5 criminal juries. That's right, I've totally sat in judgment of others. It's awesome.
 
It says he "offered" to pay bail, I thought he was denied bail :S So he hasn't actually paid bail? Just offered to?

Assange has accusations thrown at him and is wanted for questioning in Sweden, he hasn't even been charged yet, let alone convicted, let alone convicted of rape. Lets round up all the lawyers of rapists who have actually been charged (and not just accused, and actually of rape) and call them supporters of kiddy fiddlers. Fantastic. God bless the USA.

X Factor said:
What I've seen is that "alleged" usually means guilty.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've finally found a quote to put in my signature :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom