Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction. Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

To reply to your charges of us being handmaidens of dystopia: My personal sympathies lean towards anarchism/libertarianism - limited government, at the very least - not some state-uber-alles society. I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says. It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.

Baltic's position is circular. If innocent MEANS not convicted, then of course you're innocent until convicted. But the overwhelming majority of people would not so define it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.

My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".

See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit

One of the crooked cops, (Durham Regional Police) lived in a house I used to pass everyday on my way to high school.
He mysteriously got sick when he was called upon to testify about the doctoring of notes and evidence and did not appear.

The old saying, "the apple does not fall far from the tree", holds true here as his son was, and still most likely is, a complete and utter imbecile. (Goof is a much better word) When he was in grade 12, him, (he was with a couple of his friends) threw one of my friends, (the smallest one, of course, who was in grade 9), into the creek on his way to school in the winter.
Unbeknownst to him, one of my other friends was fairly tough and not afraid of much of anything so he tuned him up, and tuned him up good.
Of course word got around school about a grade 9 student beating up a grade 12 student and magically his attendance plummeted after that.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction.

Without legal proof, I'm not willing to convict a man in thought, word or deed. And when I consider a man to be innocent, I just say he's innocent and I leave it at that. I leave no doubts whatsoever with my choice of words.

Originally Posted by John1941

Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

A false equivalence if I've ever seen one. Stones need no constitutional protection. It's only individuals, particularly free thinking ones, who do.

Originally Posted by John1941

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

Do you really suspect that a Libertarian whose overriding interest is protecting individuals (including myself) from malicious prosecution by the State may just be trolling? Well you're wrong, very wrong. When it comes to the presumption of innocence, I make no compromises. It's innocent until proven guilty.

Originally Posted by John1941

I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says.

Fffftttt! Claptrap. The only protection that an individual has from the overriding power of the State is strict constitutional constraints on the power of the government. And the presumption of innocence is one of those.

Originally Posted by John1941

It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.

Nonsense! That's a preposterous argument. Just because I accept one specific definition in the Constitution in no way implies that I must embrace any other let alone all other government definitions.

In only a 1984 kind of State can a man be guilty before being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Baltic's position is circular.

I'm saying that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. What I'm saying is simple and direct. There's no circularity there at all.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If innocent MEANS not convicted, then of course you're innocent until convicted.

Yes, precisely. Case closed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There is no inconsistency between believing in the presumption of innocence as the right way for a society to govern itself, and believing in a definition of innocence that does not depend on the court system. Again, innocence in the eyes of the law, and innocence in a broader sense, are different things.