Originally posted by Heron
View Post
The better question is "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE"!?!
First, there was no conviction of rape/sexual assault, thus no "rapist".
Second, I would have hoped that the well publicized rush to judgment in the Kavanaugh situation would have eliminated posts like this - NOTHING WAS PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR THE ACCUSED IS STILL A GOOD INSTITUTION THAT SOME OF YOU WOULD FOOLISHLY DISMISS NOT THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT COULD COME BACK AROUND AND BITE YOU OR ONE OF YOUR LOVED ONES!!! BASICALLY, STOP AND THINK BEFORE YOU POST POTENTIALLY SELF DEFEATING GARBAGE LIKE THIS!!! OTHERWISE, YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS ANYONE ON THE LEFT FOR PREJUDGING OTHERS!!!
Now, for those who deal in more than just naive/juvenile/knee-jerk emotions (as played upon by the "source" ABC (and other such petty "sources") - the parent company of the ever-so-trustworthy ESPN (who have given us such admirable heroes as Michael Sams and Caitlyn Jenner)), consider the propriety of applying basic, fundamental due process rights as guaranteed under the Constitution (versus trial by biased media and the brain challenged who gleefully react to such biased reports) such as (1.) the presumption of innocence (sadly, dismissed these days if you are a male accused of assaulting a female), (2.) the right to a trial by jury of your peers (as was discouraged by the Obama Administration's "Dear Colleagues" Letter applying to Title IX cases), (3.) the right to cross examine one's accuser (again, discouraged by the Obama admin.), and (4.) the right to be represented by legal counsel (see denial of such by Obama admin's letter - not a law approved by Congress or even a Regulation, but simply an authoritarian edict).
Basically, the point is that just because you see something on Mickey Mouse TV (ABC) doesn't make it true. The fundamental, due process protections that have been put in place over the last couple of CENTURIES are there to protect the innocent accused. AN ACCUSATION/ALLEGATION IS NOT A CONVICTION!!! FOR ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS THAT, PLEASE TAKE SEVERAL MOMENTS (HOURS, DAYS, YEARS OR WHATEVER IT TAKES) TO LET THAT SINK IN!!!
While I know nothing about either the accuser or the accused, I am a firm believer in various Constitutional protections that I (and you or your loved ones) would want in the event that I would ever be falsely accused of a crime. Until proven in a court of law with representation for both parties in front of a jury of my peers with a right to cross examine my accuser and review all evidence brought by my accuser (including evidence that would contradict my accuser's version (keep in mind the old saying that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned") such as, in this case, the accuser claimed to have been drugged yet blood tests found no support for this claim) and any lack of support of such claims.
To summarize, don't be a sucker when you don't know all the facts and certainly don't draw conclusions based on what an overtly liberal media source feeds you. Even if it somehow makes you feel good or justified or "righteous".
First, there was no conviction of rape/sexual assault, thus no "rapist".
Second, I would have hoped that the well publicized rush to judgment in the Kavanaugh situation would have eliminated posts like this - NOTHING WAS PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR THE ACCUSED IS STILL A GOOD INSTITUTION THAT SOME OF YOU WOULD FOOLISHLY DISMISS NOT THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT COULD COME BACK AROUND AND BITE YOU OR ONE OF YOUR LOVED ONES!!! BASICALLY, STOP AND THINK BEFORE YOU POST POTENTIALLY SELF DEFEATING GARBAGE LIKE THIS!!! OTHERWISE, YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS ANYONE ON THE LEFT FOR PREJUDGING OTHERS!!!
Now, for those who deal in more than just naive/juvenile/knee-jerk emotions (as played upon by the "source" ABC (and other such petty "sources") - the parent company of the ever-so-trustworthy ESPN (who have given us such admirable heroes as Michael Sams and Caitlyn Jenner)), consider the propriety of applying basic, fundamental due process rights as guaranteed under the Constitution (versus trial by biased media and the brain challenged who gleefully react to such biased reports) such as (1.) the presumption of innocence (sadly, dismissed these days if you are a male accused of assaulting a female), (2.) the right to a trial by jury of your peers (as was discouraged by the Obama Administration's "Dear Colleagues" Letter applying to Title IX cases), (3.) the right to cross examine one's accuser (again, discouraged by the Obama admin.), and (4.) the right to be represented by legal counsel (see denial of such by Obama admin's letter - not a law approved by Congress or even a Regulation, but simply an authoritarian edict).
Basically, the point is that just because you see something on Mickey Mouse TV (ABC) doesn't make it true. The fundamental, due process protections that have been put in place over the last couple of CENTURIES are there to protect the innocent accused. AN ACCUSATION/ALLEGATION IS NOT A CONVICTION!!! FOR ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS THAT, PLEASE TAKE SEVERAL MOMENTS (HOURS, DAYS, YEARS OR WHATEVER IT TAKES) TO LET THAT SINK IN!!!
While I know nothing about either the accuser or the accused, I am a firm believer in various Constitutional protections that I (and you or your loved ones) would want in the event that I would ever be falsely accused of a crime. Until proven in a court of law with representation for both parties in front of a jury of my peers with a right to cross examine my accuser and review all evidence brought by my accuser (including evidence that would contradict my accuser's version (keep in mind the old saying that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned") such as, in this case, the accuser claimed to have been drugged yet blood tests found no support for this claim) and any lack of support of such claims.
To summarize, don't be a sucker when you don't know all the facts and certainly don't draw conclusions based on what an overtly liberal media source feeds you. Even if it somehow makes you feel good or justified or "righteous".
Comment