From: brockgeorge26@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:21:11 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:   
   > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:56:39 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:    
   > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > > 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.    
   > > And at *ITS* best, it is just that. A LEGAL PRESUMPTION! Indeed it has   
   *nothing* do with the actual facts of guilt or innocence. In fact even if   
   someone if *found* innocent, they can later be charged and found guilty an be   
   punished for committing    
   perjury if later unassailable evidence of guilt comes out even though the   
   person cannot actually be retried for guilt or innocence in. See the Mel   
   Ignatow case:    
   > >    
   > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow   
   > Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The   
   verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the    
   > prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had   
   murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful    
   > death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it   
   was more likely than not that he had caused the    
   > deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two   
   verdicts?   
      
   Well I personally conclude the first jury was determined to let him off,   
   pretty much no matter what!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)