posted April 16, 2009 03:23 AM         

quote:

---

The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

....

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. See also Coffin v. United States

---

- Wiki

Could not be clearer. The de facto presumption of guilt ala the Napoloeonic Code is not our way of law; never has been.

Imo, people get confused because presumption of innocence only applies from a legal perspective. Legally you cannot be convicted as guilty until you are proven to be guilty. However, whether you are actually guilty or not never changes.

Also, people may presuppose you to be one or the other based on their perspectives however all that supposition is supposed to remain outside the court. You know, like how cases are moved somewhere else so that the defendant has a chance at a fair trial?

If you were assumed to be guilty and then had to prove your innocence, there would be no acquittals. You couldn't "get off" due to circumstantial evidence or hearsay or even a lack of evidence; you would be going to jail regardless of the evidence unless you could prove you were innocent.

Think of OJ. He didn't have to prove he didn't do it. They had to prove he did. And despite all the evidence, they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he had been assumed to be guilty, then he WOULD have gone to jail regardless of doubt because he did NOT prove himself innocent.

posted April 16, 2009 10:07 AM         

If you are an open book, then you will not fear anything ,except a corrupt socialist government that alters evidences and vindicates you.

Didn't Martin Luther King say "Remember, whatever Hitler did was Legal"?

posted April 16, 2009 11:15 AM         

So, when someone pops off here with accusations that Bush did this illegal...unconstitutional act and Bush did that illegal...unconstitutional act the burden to back up those accusations falls on the accuser(s).

It is therefore perfectly "reasonable" to ask accusers to offer at least some proof their accusation(s) are true.

What generally happens when these accusers are challenged to offer up some proof is that the accusers go silent or attempt to change the subject or...attempt to twist and distort long held standards such as here where one is then challenged to prove something DIDN'T happen. Prove a negative.

I set the bar of proof pretty low in this instance. "Name 3 American citizens who had their rights violated by Bush or the Patriot Act...out of 300,000,000 US citizens.

Surely, given all the leftist screeching, howling, whining and shrieking about Bush stomping on the Constitutional rights of US citizens for the last 8 years...3 instances could be found easily.

But no, setting the bar of proof at 3 out of 300,000,000 is much too high.

posted April 16, 2009 11:38 AM         

and you cannot do that.

posted April 16, 2009 12:05 PM         

In every instance katatonic, you whiffed, punted or went entirely silent.

posted April 16, 2009 12:27 PM         

AND

Anyone standing on their 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms".

Anyone who is against abortion.

Anyone who wants the US to control US borders.

Anyone who peaceable assembles to protest government actions.

Anyone who believes the 10th Amendment is a valid part of the US Constitution.

Any returning US military personnel.

All these have been profiled by the DHS and the report issued by the state of Missouri as potential militia members.

Profiling and Criminalizing Political Dissent
Written by William F. Jasper
Friday, 20 March 2009 21:51
By William F. Jasper

A recent report issued through the Missouri State Highway Patrol is stirring alarm among citizens and some elected officials that Christians, political conservatives, and opponents of unconstitutional government action are being targeted for intimidation and harassment — or worse. The drafters of the report clearly are attempting to create in the minds of law-enforcement personnel an association between violent “right-wing extremists” and the millions of law-abiding Americans who oppose gun control, the United Nations, the Federal Reserve System, the income tax, illegal immigration, and abortion.

The eight-page report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20 also specifically mentions by name Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who ran for president in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, and third-party candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. The clear implication is that people sporting bumper stickers or literature related to these candidates should be viewed as potential threats that view all law enforcement as “the enemy.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/911

posted April 16, 2009 01:30 PM         

Hi Eleanore.. How are you doing these days? You all are still in Japan right? Bear and may actually stay here another 2-3 years if my LT COL has anything to do with it LOL..
I hope you are well

posted April 16, 2009 02:18 PM         

IT DOES NOT EVEN IMPLY THAT RON PAUL, BALDWIN OR BARR ARE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

so despite the not so pretty document, which appears to be a missouri document and nothing to do with the obama administration, your proof is in the trashed pudding.

posted April 16, 2009 02:41 PM         

quote:

---

In every instance katatonic, you whiffed, punted or went entirely silent.

---

posted April 16, 2009 02:59 PM         

the difference is that my information comes from personal sources and experiences for the most part. and IF jwhop read that report he apparently read into it what was not there. or maybe he just accepted the opinion of the article writer who misinterpreted it.

posted April 17, 2009 10:58 AM         

David Letterman's "Top Ten Signs the Government Is Spying on You."

10. You turn on television and see a live feed of your shower

9. While you're ordering pizza, mysterious voice on the phone tells you to forget the mushrooms

8. There's been an ice cream truck parked outside your house for 9 months

7. Your dog has an antenna

6. You came home early and found an agent dusting your wife for prints

5. Your cat has an antenna

4. After eating a falafel, your name was added to the "Do Not Fly" list

3. Drudge Report features exclusive news about your breakfast

2. CIA director Hayden calls and says, "Judging by these surveillance photos, you should get that thing on your ass looked at"

posted April 17, 2009 11:36 AM         

The PEACEFUL protesting of all the radical extremests the other day must have been a real eye opener. i know i was impressed with the class that was displayed.

o-bow-ma went too far wtih the spying, the gov't admitted it.

bush did too, no-one admits it. of course we can't prove it so, jwhops must be a freaking genious to have thought this all up himself. if i was his neighbor i would bug the crap out of him every day on purpose and enjoy every minute of it. .....and that doesn't mean i don't like him, as i would not bother or have time to pick on people i don't like.

posted April 17, 2009 11:37 AM         

but just so you know, pidaua, i don't consider jwhop to have come out trumps here. it's a matter of perception, i guess. he appears to believe what he reads in opinion blogs without checking their sources, as his naming those three people as evidence was off the mark.

posted April 17, 2009 11:58 AM         

do you know where i live the small guy business owner is all but gone. as much as i can i still shop in little stores as to support my community. but there aren't many left in ghost town midwest.

posted April 17, 2009 12:59 PM         

You have entered the realm of absurd. My husband may not be here by my side but that has nothing to do with my comments. If you look back through my posts you will not see that I have had a drastic change "just because my Bear is not with me". This is NOT our first deployment nor will it be our last. Military wives have been living and doing on our own for many, many decades.

In any case... you crack me up. You remind me of a certain poster that once made a snide remark that a post of mine was only written because I was suffering from "pregnancy" hormones... sad, sad little remarks made from people that have nothing better to say than to think they are "sticking" it to the other person.

But hey... at least I did not go below the belt with any of your personal circumstances.. Then again.. that is not how I debate.