A
andreapalladio
Guest
Their innocence is not a matter for belief. The fact is that THEY ARE INNOCENT until the state can prove they are guilty beyond a resonable doubt.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Suicidal Gingerbread Man
Guest
miketoronto:
Yes, good idea to wait for the trial to complete.
Very level-headed response, miketoronto. Perhaps you can speak with miketoronto to try to convince him, because that guy is a real asshole.
Well atleast I am waiting for the trial to fully believe they are guilty.
Yes, good idea to wait for the trial to complete.
Very level-headed response, miketoronto. Perhaps you can speak with miketoronto to try to convince him, because that guy is a real asshole.
P
paulbali
Guest
"Their innocence is not a matter for belief. The fact is that THEY ARE INNOCENT until the state can prove they are guilty beyond a resonable doubt."
Andrea, we would all agree that in the technical legal sense of 'guilt' they are not guilty until found so by the courts. But they may be guilty even now, in the common, moral sense of 'guilt'.
Presumption of innocence is a useful and noble legal practice. But it is completely rational in many cases for the layman to form some sort of inductive judgement on the guilt of an accused, even before they stand trial. There are many factors one might take into account here to arrive at such a judgement. For example, though there are of course exceptions, the police in Canada do not generally arrest until they have fairly strong evidence. So even without seeing any evidence, it would be rational to say of any arrested person x: "It is probable that x is guilty."
In this case the public has been presented with some evidence, and some of it (like the fertilizer) seems fairly compelling.
In short, it would be irrational for the layman to say in this case, before trial: "The accused are certainly guilty". But it would be at least as irrational to say: "I presume that they are innocent."
Andrea, we would all agree that in the technical legal sense of 'guilt' they are not guilty until found so by the courts. But they may be guilty even now, in the common, moral sense of 'guilt'.
Presumption of innocence is a useful and noble legal practice. But it is completely rational in many cases for the layman to form some sort of inductive judgement on the guilt of an accused, even before they stand trial. There are many factors one might take into account here to arrive at such a judgement. For example, though there are of course exceptions, the police in Canada do not generally arrest until they have fairly strong evidence. So even without seeing any evidence, it would be rational to say of any arrested person x: "It is probable that x is guilty."
In this case the public has been presented with some evidence, and some of it (like the fertilizer) seems fairly compelling.
In short, it would be irrational for the layman to say in this case, before trial: "The accused are certainly guilty". But it would be at least as irrational to say: "I presume that they are innocent."
A
andreapalladio
Guest
How could they possibly be thought guilty when the evidence hasn't been presented, let alone examined and challenged?
The justice system doesn't decide things on the basis of morality. It decides them on the basis of the facts, and the law. Thus far, there are no facts that prove that any of the accused broke any law. What may seem rational to a layman is not necessarily correct.
We have seen no evidence that the bag of fertilizer the cops had on tv on the weekend belonged to any of the accused. And even if it did, it's not illegal to own fertilizer. So the only thing that's been proved is that cops took a bag of fertilizer to a press conference.
The justice system doesn't decide things on the basis of morality. It decides them on the basis of the facts, and the law. Thus far, there are no facts that prove that any of the accused broke any law. What may seem rational to a layman is not necessarily correct.
We have seen no evidence that the bag of fertilizer the cops had on tv on the weekend belonged to any of the accused. And even if it did, it's not illegal to own fertilizer. So the only thing that's been proved is that cops took a bag of fertilizer to a press conference.
S
sam95ta
Guest
Damn racist mounties.They should of let these muslims kill a few hundred or thousand people before they arrest them.Now that would be polticaly correct.
S
Suicidal Gingerbread Man
Guest
^
I don't think anyone, even the PC crowd, would argue that. I think we can all agree on the rule of law.
I don't think anyone, even the PC crowd, would argue that. I think we can all agree on the rule of law.
P
paulbali
Guest
"We have seen no evidence that the bag of fertilizer the cops had on tv on the weekend belonged to any of the accused."
I think we were told quite clearly that the displayed bag did not belong to the accused, and was merely a sample. But we were also told that police completed delivery to the accused of a very large amount of fertilizer.
I think we were told quite clearly that the displayed bag did not belong to the accused, and was merely a sample. But we were also told that police completed delivery to the accused of a very large amount of fertilizer.
A
andreapalladio
Guest
Where is the proof of the delivery? And of the order? And that it was ordered by one of the accused? Even if we accept that what the cops said on tv is true (and cops have been known to lie), delivery is proof of nothing but that the cops delivered it.
And even if it was ordered by, delivered to and accepted by one of the accused, or all of them, what of it? Possession of fertilizer is no crime.
And even if it was ordered by, delivered to and accepted by one of the accused, or all of them, what of it? Possession of fertilizer is no crime.
A
adma
Guest
Heck, if they wanted to blow up Parliament, they don't even need to bring fertilizer. Parliament's full of it already
*wha-whaaa*
*wha-whaaa*
B
bizorky
Guest
Come on guys, cut the crap. You know most people on the street think these guys are already guilty. Maybe in your liberal downtown hood they are all thinking something else.
Again, mike, you proclaim to know what everyone else thinks when in fact you don't.
The "crap" part you refer to is where the legal system happens to lie. It is within that system of law and judiciary processes where guilt will be determined.
In short, it would be irrational for the layman to say in this case, before trial: "The accused are certainly guilty". But it would be at least as irrational to say: "I presume that they are innocent."
A reasonable point. The police have powers within society to arrest and hold individuals on the ground that they may have conspired (in this case) to commit acts of violence. The police can only do this when enough evidence is collected in order to justify their actions. It is within the courts where the police and prosecutors will present their evidence to show whether police actions were justified. The onus is on the prosecutors and police to prove their case.
O
Observer Walt
Guest
I have followed the tone of this thread and at least one other similar thread over the past couple of days with a sense of dismay. I think most people on this forum will surely be intelligent enough to know that people are innocent until proven guilty in a properly constituted court, and we are nowhere near that point yet. Yes cops have been known to lie and charges have been known to be disproven, and some (maybe even all) of these charges may be disproven in due course.
It is not inconsistent to say the above, and also to say that there is now more and more evidence of a few in our midst who have ill will toward our entire society, and are prepared to act on it. We don't need to wait for a court before we have a serious discussion of that.
It is not inconsistent to say the above, and also to say that there is now more and more evidence of a few in our midst who have ill will toward our entire society, and are prepared to act on it. We don't need to wait for a court before we have a serious discussion of that.
B
billy corgan19982
Guest
And even if it was ordered by, delivered to and accepted by one of the accused, or all of them, what of it? Possession of fertilizer is no crime.
Did you forget the fact that these individuals had remote detonators, guns and other weapons in addition to ammonium nitrate? Last time I checked you didn’t need any of those items to grow a few plants. But in Andrea’s politically correct world these are just misunderstood men who are being framed by the man in order to push the conservative agenda.
S
Suicidal Gingerbread Man
Guest
^
I think andrea is playing devil's advocate. The point being is that we DON'T know all of the details.
I suspect the case is quite strong against this group. We'll see.
I think andrea is playing devil's advocate. The point being is that we DON'T know all of the details.
I suspect the case is quite strong against this group. We'll see.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"The point being is that we DON'T know all of the details."
Until we do, 95% of everyone is going to assume they are completely guilty, and if they're not convicted, most will assume they're guilty anyway.
Until we do, 95% of everyone is going to assume they are completely guilty, and if they're not convicted, most will assume they're guilty anyway.
N
nassauone
Guest
Further to that they are all on the next ship home anyway. Even if that home is in Pickering.
Bon Voyage!!
Bon Voyage!!