Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Tobias-Reiper · 04-14-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

Oh it does work that way. If we're talking semantics ( and it appears as though we are ), neither I nor you KNOW if Ben is "Innocent" of rape or picking his nose, but in the eyes of the law, in this case, he is not guilty because they didn't have enough to charge him and so guess what? Innocent. Same as Capone, or Gotti, or anyone else...UNTIL such time as there is enough evidence to convict and that evidence is presented in such a way that a conviction is achieved. A person is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Period. That doesn't mean they didn't do the crime.

Is OJ a murderer? Guess that depends on which side of the semantics argument you wanna be on.

I am going to stop, but before I do, I will just tell you this: language is everything in law. Semantics in law are a *****

. Presumption of innocence and not enough evidence to charge do not equate to being "innocent"..

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

04-14-2010, 02:32 PM	#11
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick Originally Posted by saintfan Oh it does work that way. If we're talking semantics ( and it appears as though we are ), neither I nor you KNOW if Ben is "Innocent" of rape or picking his nose, but in the eyes of the law, in this case, he is not guilty because they didn't have enough to charge him and so guess what? Innocent. Same as Capone, or Gotti, or anyone else...UNTIL such time as there is enough evidence to convict and that evidence is presented in such a way that a conviction is achieved. A person is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Period. That doesn't mean they didn't do the crime. Is OJ a murderer? Guess that depends on which side of the semantics argument you wanna be on. I am going to stop, but before I do, I will just tell you this: language is everything in law. Semantics in law are a ***** . Presumption of innocence and not enough evidence to charge do not equate to being "innocent".. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill