• 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!

Guilty without a trial?

Mr Person said:
I'm not sure what you mean.

He's guilty in the eyes of public opinion because of ****ing course he is. He had all the weaponry set up - didn't he even film himself doing parts of this or did I dream that up? - the angles made sense, he shot himself when the cops came, etc.

But he's not "guilty" in the sense of being convicted. I mean, he's dead. We don't indict dead people then enter a conviction in the docket or something. (In fact, if someone dies while their appeal is pending, the conviction is wiped from the record). It would be a pretty absurd symbolic point to put the effort into making.
Click to expand...

He was just an example ... but you are correct. Not legally...

Just think of more obscure cases. My point was we can form opinions but live people have a chance to prove innocence... dead ones dont. Look at the dirl who just recieved a lesser charge for kidnapping and torturing the handi capped guy. If she died we would say kidnapper and torturer. She lived though and is only legally guilty of whatever the lesser charge is.
 
jimbo said:
Bodhisattva said:
Why is the Las Vegas shooter automatically guilty just because he is dead? No Due Process? If he had lived he would have been prosecuted and the DA would have to have proven guilt like the unibomber or Timmy McVeigh.

The LV shooter seems pretty open and shut but it is not always and still there is no trial.

Why automatically guilty?[/QU susOTE]

You make a somewhat valid point. Just because your prime suspect is dead doesn't mean he is guilty or the only guilty party.

In both Oswald and the Vegas shooting I have a strong suspicion there is more to the story. In both they didn't act alone, and in Oswald maybe not at all. Yet we'll never know.
Click to expand...

5:45am... time for a walk on the beach. :)
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
We assume his is guilty because no compelling evidence has presented by anyone credible countering that assumption.
Click to expand...

And yet no compelling evidence has been presented supporting that claim. Hints and allegations, mountains of conflicting evidence, the cell phones of attendees wiped clean. Way beyond fishy. Typical modern American false flag.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I like the first sentence ..


Not sure who M. Adams is...
Click to expand...

And my bet is you don't want to find out who M. Adams is. If you happen to be curious, put in "forensic acoustic research Mike Adams". It's been there for months, I've posted it here on other threads.

Caution, it may blow your mind.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And my bet is you don't want to find out who M. Adams is. If you happen to be curious, put in "forensic acoustic research Mike Adams". It's been there for months, I've posted it here on other threads.

Caution, it may blow your mind.
Click to expand...

Nope...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom