Seems like a lot of people have already convicted the frat-boy pope... err... Penn State coach for his alleged role in the current scandal involving the school. Same thing with Herman Cain and his harrasin' o' white womminz. Is anyone else a little bothered by this? Shouldn't we be giving the accused the presumption of innocence?
_________________ you get a lifetime, that's it.
Last edited by broken iris on Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post subject: Re: JoePa and convictions without a trials
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:15 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm Posts: 8288
i'll reserve my judgement on Joe as a person and possibly a criminal until all the facts come out, but just based on the failures we already know about, he should be fired.
the other guy got too popular without having the right friends, and Operation: Character Assassination was put into effect.
Post subject: Re: JoePa and convictions without a trials
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:25 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
Seems like a lot of people have already convicted the frat-boy pope... err... Penn State coach for his alleged role in the current scandal involving the school. Same thing with Herman Cain and his harrasin' o' white womminz. Is anyone else a little bothered by this? Shouldn't we be giving the accused the presumption of innocence?
I knew Herman Cain prior to his run and this prior knowledge plus the fact that Gloria Alred was the one behind the "charges" (which are essentially unprovable anyway) led me to believe that story had no legs and was simply a baseless attack on a person running for office. It's fairly expected nonsense really. Why it led on network news with the Sandusky scandal going on is beyond me. There's absolutly no substance, and it's not even interesting. The further it goes, the more it shows that these people were more interested in using "sexual harassment" to advance their own positions and wallets.... and they're still doing it.
If it were rampant speculation about Joe Pa, I'd understand, but the Grand Jury statments were under oath. There is plenty of evidence in that testimony that says given the time elapsed since the 1998 and 2002 incidents and that Sandusky is still trampsing around on campus in the athletic buildings (last week) Joe Pa had to be fired along with everyone else involved as soon as possible. No they didn't perform the heinous acts of Sandusky, but they knew about them and did nothing to stop him. I'm not sure we'll ever know why they did this, but Penn State can't have men in authority who do not act when they should. It's only going to get worse from here with this story unfortunately.
Post subject: Re: JoePa and convictions without a trials
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:37 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Presumption of innocence applies to jury trials, not the court of public opinion. We are all allowed to have, and voice, opinions as long as we are willing to set those aside should we be selected to be in charge of the actual legal judgement.
Presumption of innocence applies to jury trials, not the court of public opinion. We are all allowed to have, and voice, opinions as long as we are willing to set those aside should we be selected to be in charge of the actual legal judgement.
I understand and agree, it just seems like for three allegations; Pedophilia, Sexual Harassment, and Racism, the suggestion of the crime is tantamount to a conviction. And I was thinking more about Michael Jackson vs. OJ.
Post subject: Re: JoePa and convictions without a trials
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:06 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
Presumption of innocence applies to jury trials, not the court of public opinion. We are all allowed to have, and voice, opinions as long as we are willing to set those aside should we be selected to be in charge of the actual legal judgement.
I understand and agree, it just seems like for three allegations; Pedophilia, Sexual Harassment, and Racism, the suggestion of the crime is tantamount to a conviction. And I was thinking more about Michael Jackson vs. OJ.
I agree actually, especially pedophilia and racism. To be clear on this one though, no one is calling Joe Pa a pedophile- and the stated evidence seems to show that he was passively involved in the cover up.
I read the 24 page indictment in the penn state case. If you read it you will have absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of Jerry. Herman Cain's situation is much different though given the number of people coming out and the objective facts in the case (paid off people to shut them up) it's hard to see that he isn't guilty of some sort of harassment.
Point being, they are two entirely separate issues. I don't even think Jerry should get a trial or be on bail; he should be put right in a mental hospital.
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Point being, they are two entirely separate issues. I don't even think Jerry should get a trial or be on bail; he should be put right in a mental hospital down immediately.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Seriously though, bail? God we have a fucked up legal system.
I guess they're hoping he kills himself and saves the state the effort.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
