Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.conspiracy.jfk    |    Discussing the assassination of JFK    |    99,700 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 98,173 of 99,700    |
|    JE Corbett to Hank Sienzant    |
|    Re: Questions for Gil #2    |
|    20 Nov 23 04:36:18    |
      From: jecorbett4@gmail.com              On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:19:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:       > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:        > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:        > > > Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or       interpret it as you may.        > > "Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link       that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.       > You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of       President Kennedy…"        >        > What did you mean by that?       > > A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a       person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge       or jury can do that.       > What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t       historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School,       because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never       tried.        >        > And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower       shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas       Tower?               Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.       >        > Is that your final answer?       > > And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a       presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US       Constitution.       > That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have       rights. You don’t understand the law.              That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in.       Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew       out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person       accused of a crime due process before        depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused       is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,       liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor       presumption of innocence.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca