I would say I they are correct in suspecting this guy. Hopefully this man is not being wrongfully accussed. If he is the guy, lets track this bastard down.
Whether someone is convicted by a court of law or not does not truly tell if someone is guilty or not. It only tells if the state can enforce a penalty and call someone guilty. Was OJ innocent just because he was not convicted? Were the police officers that beat up Rodney King innocent after their first trial where they were declared not guilty and the riots were set off? How about the people that were declared innocent after DNA tests proved their innocence after years of being in jail after being "proved guilty" and convicted by a court of law? The list could go on. If this suspect was not black but a white Republican or better yet what if his name was John Brady, would you be so quick not to judge?
If I'm not mistaken, "innocent until proven guilty" remains the standard regardless of race, creed or national origin.
Yes that is the standard, but my point was that just because a court of law says you are innocent of a crime does not always mean that the person really did not do something wrong(or the reverse). Not that this person should not be given all his/her legal rights. I just think Tuwho was being politcally correct.
A court of law does not say a defendent is innocent. The choices are guilty or not guilty. Not every defendent who gets a not guilty verdict is innocent - OJ Simpson for example. OJ was found not guilty by a jury but I don't believe he was innocent of the crime.
Has to be some lawyers here playing on words. If not quilty does not mean you are innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law and innocent does not mean you are not quilty in the eyes of the law , what the hell does not quilty and innocent mean.
DT, maybe we should do away with the trial by jury and return to survival of the fittest. The earth is overpopulated any way, according to the good liberals.
