New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

I have a life. When you grow up you might have one too.

But you know, there are lots of statements I and others have made throughout this thread that you conveniently ignored. I'm sure that wasn't by accident, but lets just take a look at some of your brilliance:

Quote:

There have also been cases where a defendant was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on appeal because of mishandling or misrepresentation of evidence during the case. This can happen on a judge’s ruling and have nothing to do with a jury hearing the facts of a case. In neither one of these instances is the defendant innocent. But because of legal definitions they cannot be found guilty.

This one is entry # 52, and I believe your fist entry into the thread. Allow me to ask you, if a person is convicted and later it is proved that the evidence was mishandled or otherwise unreliable, are you seriously saying the person is still guilty? I'm going to give you a bit of credit here and assume you just didn't organize your thoughts before you typed them into internet immortality. I don't know 'bout you, but if I'm convicted on bogus evidence I wanna be proclaimed 'not guilty', which BY LAW means Innocent, just in case you're paying attention, but lets continue, shall we? This is not subject to interpretation, neither mine nor yours. This is the way the legal system works regardless of whether you agree or disagree, so in these situations if you want to argue with someone, show up down at the court house and give it a go...oh...and good luck with that...you know...the whole 'overturning our legal system' thing. ;)

Quote:

I'm not saying that he did assault the girl because I wasn't there. But I'm guessing you weren't either. So you saying he positively did not assault her because the DA decided that there wasn't enough to charge him on is a total guess on your part even if you don't want to admit it. Tell me this, if nothing happened as you claim, then why didn't the police file charges against her for filing a false police report?

Now entry # 70 is spent by you railing on Canton because, as you said, he couldn't possibly know what happened. Neither could you, but as you can see here you seem to feel that maybe you do have a better position than Canton to make your claim. First you say you don't, the the last sentence where you do. Which is it anyway? Did you buy the Vulcan mind Meld 'How To" out of the back of your Superman comic?

We go on to discuss overturned cases, where you post some numbers you found via Google or Bing or whatever, which do nothing to support your argument and in fact pretty much prove everyone's point but your own when they do actually address the point.

In post # 82 you make this statement:

Quote:

But my point is basically the same one you are making; that one should not assume anything. In none of my posts have I said that he is guilty of anything.

But your point isn't the same as mine - as we can see by going back to post 70 I think it was:

Quote:

Tell me this, if nothing happened as you claim, then why didn't the police file charges against her for filing a false police report?

Then, falconhater continues his childish tirade and proclaims his satisfaction with the thought that the league will punish Ben and that "He will pay". I explain to him that (obviously) what the league does has nothing to do with the legal situation and you rush in to defend his poor lost soul...

Quote:

Why are you so hung up on your interpretation of our legal system? At this point the league and team are looking at and talking to him very closely. He could...stress could be suspended or traded because of his repeated actions. I'm watching news now and more is coming out about the investigation right now. Hater has a right to feel like he does and you inferring he is dumb is kinda silly, because at this point he still may face discipline.

You continue your defense of falconhater in post 90:

Quote:

You are the one all over the place with your arguments.

But I'm not. I'm right to the point, which is that Ben is Innocent from a legal perspective. I have not wavered and shall not. But I digress...

More from post 90:

Quote:

And as for the supreme court backing you up, well all court systems back me up, because in a trial, the verdicts are guilty or not guilty.....never is the verdict innocent. Look it up.

This is where you go stupid. I quote the Supreme Court of the United States of America and you just can't accept it. In post 91 you post a sentence or so of a wikipedia page you found, with the misguided thought that your point had been proved, but I slam the door on you in post 92 where I get you educated and explain using quotes from the Supreme Court from the very same wikipedia article you didn't read completely - and I even used bold type to highlight the important points to make it simple for you, the most important of which is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But you can't do the smart thing and crawl back into your hole can you?

You come back in post 116 and ask me to answer a couple questions, one to find a direct quote of you saying "hang 'em high" and the other about "innocent until proven guilty" being (or not being) in the constitution.

I indicated that defending the comments of falconhater is where you when wrong - but I should has added that it was that action and not that you literally said "hang 'em high", because that was my response to question 1. I made the mistake of thinking you were smart enough to see that. My mistake.

Here's my answer to question two:

Quote:

The presumption of innocence not being in the constitution is irrelevant, and in fact is pointless to the discussion. You found that in Wikipedia and made the mistake of thinking it proved your misguided point, however the Supreme Court smacked that down for you. All I did was copy and paste big fella.

You come back and talk big as is I was either afraid or unable or unwilling you answer your silly questions, neither of which have any substance as to the debate in this thread, which you proclaim yourself 'winner'. LOL

So let me bring you back to the essence of why I got involved in this thread. Falconhater called Ben a rapist (actually he called him a 'rappist, which means he can't spell or he thinks Ben likes to rap). He did so without any evidence that he can point to reliably - and with less than the DA who indicated there wasn't enough evidence to charge.

The point I have made, which is correct by the way, is that Ben is innocent. And he is innocent, in the eyes of the law. He has not been charged, much less convicted of anything. Which is not to say he didn't commit a crime, but rather to say nobody knows, and since there is no such thing as 'kinda guilty' or 'a little innocent' the man is innocent. There is no way to argue that.

You can talk about not being 'declared innocent', but that just exposes your ignorance, see we are born innocent, BY LAW, and therefore must be convicted of a crime for that status to change, BY LAW.

I have explained to you that this is the law of the land per the Supreme Court of the United States, and so I have to assume that if that isn't good enough for you then there's not much else I can do, and frankly I'm not really interested. It isn't 'my' interpretation, as you've attempted to indicate erroneously, but rather the interpretation of the United States Supreme Court.

Sadly, people like you are all over, but thankfully people like me out number you, which is why a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty and not the other way around. Is Ben guilty of something? Sure he is, because if nothing else he's stupid, but that's are far as it can go, legally, regardless of what you or falconhater or anyone else chooses to believe.

So, you've been so interested in me answering your two silly questions. Hopefully you can now see that I have. But I wonder, did you accept my challenge to you? Have you talked to any lawyers or judges about what it means to be innocent until proven guilty - about how there is no middle ground in the eyes of the law, and about how being innocent until proven guilty is a right you inherit in this country at birth and why there is no 'innocent' proclamation in a court of law because it is inferred? I doubt that you have, have you?

L = Laughing
O = Out
L = Loud

...at the master debater, the self-proclaimed 'winner' of this little discussion. Well OK, I quit...you're the winner! LMMFAO