Sickening

[spike]

You truly are one of the most idiotic idiots I have ever had the misfortune of running across.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE STANDARD OF AMERICAN LAW YET YOU DECRY MY DEFENSE OF THAT STANDARD.

Proving once again that there is no substance to your position by incessantly trolling. I know it's frustrating to have every point you make slapped down so go ahead, throw another tantrum Jim.

Presumption of innocence does not mean ignoring all the evidence like you have. It also does not mean declaring them not guilty before a trial like you have. It also does not mean blocking the gathering of evidence. Fundamental concepts you might want to explore before you end up on a jury.

You're just making it obvious that you're just a hypocrite claiming to have a "wait and see" approach while you really are just ignoring the evidence and declaring them innocent.

Get a grip man.

I don't know if ANY of their marriages are recorded with the state -- even the monogamous ones.

Do you have a point or not?

The government is merely a secular business entity to them just like GM or Chrysler.

Again...point? Thankfully they still have to follow the laws, which puts sick fucks like Warren Jeffs in jail.

Apparently the legislators in DE, ID, MA, MT, UT, and WY have.

Seems you've done a fair amount of research on screwing minors as well. This isn't the first thread that you've jumped to defend the practice.

Not to mention other threads where you've portrayed fears of internet predators as unfounded.

I see a pattern emerging.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

The impact died a hundred years before either of us was born.

Gonz. Dude. I know you worship that Hartford-edited history book, but put it down long enough to pick up a math book.

100 years before you were born...THE WAR WAS IN FULL SWING!!!! How the hell could its effects have died down?

Keep trying to convince yourself you're right. The cracks are glaring and obvious.

And I'm done sidetracking the advertised pissing contest. All apologies, but I could NOT let that go and still sleep tonight.

 

[2minkey]

... now back to our regularly scheduled contest for the role of village idiot... with markjs out of the picture it's pretty much a two-way contest here. seems to be about an equal match-up. i think we'll see who the real winner is when someone has a tantrum and doesn't post for a couple days... upon their return, they'll have the crown.

 

[jimpeel]

Presumption of innocence does not mean ignoring all the evidence like you have.

You don't know what evidence the authorities have. You just think you do.

It also does not mean declaring them not guilty before a trial like you have.

While you declare them guilty before a trial.

It also does not mean blocking the gathering of evidence.

You espouse the unconstitutional taking of evidence from those who are unable to understand their rights.

Fundamental concepts you might want to explore before you end up on a jury.

My fundamental concepts are documented in every law book in the land. Yours are not. If you are ever on a jury I pity the poor sap who is before the bar; because you will believe them guilty before the first fall of the judge's gavel calling the court to order.

You're just making it obvious that you're just a hypocrite claiming to have a "wait and see" approach while you really are just ignoring the evidence and declaring them innocent.

If standing up for, and adhering to, the supreme law of the land is hypocrisy then I stand guilty as charged.

Seems you've done a fair amount of research on screwing minors as well. This isn't the first thread that you've jumped to defend the practice.

I jump to the defense of those accused of murder wherein the evidence has yet to be presented in a court of law. Do I believe in my heart of hearts that O.J. Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman? Yes. But a jury of his peers declared him not guilty after the presentation of all the evidence against him so he is not guilty regardless of my thoughts on the matter.

Not to mention other threads where you've portrayed fears of internet predators as unfounded.

There is great panic over internet predators and the press beats the drum like it is a highly prevalent crime. It is not. The press simply gloms onto an issue and they hype it for all they are worth. I posted an article on the myths that the press hypes.

I post an informative article on the propensity of the press to exaggerate an issue and all you see is "He must be in favor of that issue."

You buy into the myths; and I buy into the truth.

You keep posting myths; and I'll keep posting the truth.

 

[spike]

While you declare them guilty before a trial.

Nope. Haven't done that.

My fundamental concepts are documented in every law book in the land. Yours are not.

Nope. Seems your defending the idea of them ignoring the laws.

If standing up for, and adhering to, the supreme law of the land is hypocrisy then I stand guilty as charged.

Nope, it's the hypocritical stances that are hypocrisy.

You buy into the myths; and I buy into the truth.

Nope, I want the truth to come out and see who these kids daddies are.

 

[spike]

Saw some more interviews with FLDS escapees yesterday with some tours of former compounds. It ain't looking good.

 

[jimpeel]

Nope. Haven't done that.

To refuse to acknowledge the tenets of the law, which declares them innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence before a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, is akin to declaring them guilty as charged without a trial.

Nope. Seems your defending the idea of them ignoring the laws.

Nope; but the SCotUS has ruled:

Early in this Nation's history, this Court established the sound proposition that constitutional government in a system of separated powers requires judges to regard as inoperative any legislative act, even of Congress itself, that is "repugnant to the Constitution."

"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution (YOU); or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law (ME); the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case." Marbury, supra, at 178.
-DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES No. 99-5525. Argued April 19, 2000--Decided June 26, 2000

Nope, I want the truth to come out and see who these kids daddies are.

Regardless of the consequences to the constitutional rights of the children? Are they not citizens of this country simply because they do not understand their rights?

Why are you so concerned about who their daddy is anyway? Are you afraid that one of them might be yours?

 

[spike]

To refuse to acknowledge the tenets of the law, which declares them innocent until proven guilty

I'm not refusing any of that Jim. Just looking at the evidence until I see how it turns out. Not looking good so far.

Regardless of the consequences to the constitutional rights of the children? Are they not citizens of this country simply because they do not understand their rights?

The constitutional right not to find out who your daddy is?

Why are you so concerned about who their daddy is anyway? Are you afraid that one of them might be yours?

Damn, I thought everyone had figured out that already. It will show whether they've been illegally screwing underaged girls or not Jim. If they're not then they can clear this up quick.

 

[jimpeel]

I'm not refusing any of that Jim. Just looking at the evidence until I see how it turns out. Not looking good so far.

And pre-judging them in the process.

The constitutional right not to find out who your daddy is?

First of all, where is that written in the Constitution? I must have missed that part.

What they do have as a constitutional right is the right against unreasonable searches. It is unreasonable, and unconstitutional, to take evidence from someone who cannot understand their right to refuse to give that evidence.

Damn, I thought everyone had figured out that already. It will show whether they've been illegally screwing underaged girls or not Jim. If they're not then they can clear this up quick.

If they have, they have the right to NOT give evidence or testimony against themselves. I take it you want to tear that part of the Constitution out and throw it away and replace it with "The authorities have the right to do whatever they damn well please when it comes to taking evidence from whomever they damn well please"?

 

[spike]

And pre-judging them in the process.

Seems you're pre-juding here. I just want all available evidence collected so the court can make a valid judgement.

First of all, where is that written in the Constitution? I must have missed that part.

Exactly, you can't just make up rights.

What they do have as a constitutional right is the right against unreasonable searches. It is unreasonable, and unconstitutional, to take evidence from someone who cannot understand their right to refuse to give that evidence.

Finding out who their parents are is totally reasonable. Judges can and do order DNA evidence all the time in paternity cases and crimes involving children.

If they have, they have the right to NOT give evidence or testimony against themselves.

The kids aren't giving evidence against themselves since they aren't accused of anything.

 

[Gonz]

Exactly, you can't just make up rights.

well, could be

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If it's not specifically adressed by the Constitution, the government can't do it.
If it's not specifically forbidden, the people can do it.

 

[chcr]

If it's not specifically adressed by the Constitution, the government can't do it.
If it's not specifically forbidden, the people can do it.

Then why all the pissing and moaning about gay marriage? It's not, after all, specifically forbidden.

 

[Gonz]

Tradition...if the Congress gets it before the people (Amendment), it can become politically entangled. Over 230 years of man/woman tradition-challenged in a political arena (courts) made it a political toy.

 

[spike]

If it's not specifically adressed by the Constitution, the government can't do it.
If it's not specifically forbidden, the people can do it.

I guess that makes drunk driving legal.

 

[chcr]

I guess that makes drunk driving legal.

and burning the flag.

 

[Gonz]

I guess that makes drunk driving legal.

State.

and burning the flag.

Yep.

 

[jimpeel]

Looks like Gonz and I were right about this

I guess the court ruled in my favor. The law is the law and those who are violating them are the ones who are supposed to uphold and be restrained by the law.

You rush to judgement types should be ashamed of yourselves.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357266,00.html

Texas Appellate Court Rules Officials Did Not Have Right to Seize Polygamist Ranch Children
Thursday, May 22, 2008

SAN ANGELO, Texas — A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law.

• Click here to view photos.

Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to be grown-up predators.

The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings. The ruling came as judges were signing off on individual custody plans in San Angelo.

 

[2minkey]

so it's a matter of arguing substantive v formal/technical interpretations of law. "immediate danger" is a technical definition.

if you were on a jury, would you convict someone who shot a man who'd raped his wife?

hmmm. something tells me this is not the end of the story.

... and OJ got acquitted.

 

[jimpeel]

Oh, I fully expect this to continue. CPS will be losing a fortune from their current and future budgets over this case. If they are not allowed to keep the kids the current budget takes a major hit which may require emergency funding. If they are allowed to keep the kids, they are in gravy for the foreseeable future.

 

[jimpeel]

if you were on a jury, would you convict someone who shot a man who'd raped his wife?

Crimes of passion are covered in the law. It all depends on the time between when the two events occurred.

There was a cop in L.A. who shot a kid who was arrested for raping his daughter. It seems that she was doing door-to-door sales and these guys yanked her into the house and had their way with her.

The problem is that the guy they arrested was not the bad guy; and he wasn't involved in any way whatsoever other than taking a bullet from an out of control cop. Don't remember the outcome but the guy didn't die and the cop ended up under arrest.

The shooting happened two days after the rape. That is too long of a time to be considered a crime of passion. However ... the cop saw him in the hallway and went ballistic -- literally -- within seconds of seeing him. That could be considered a crime of passion.

The circumstances of the issue are complicated.