saintfan

I will infer the same about you if you agree with him. What he's saying makes no sense. The league can very well 'legislate morality' among the players. Your employer can require you to shave, for example. It's two different things, completely, and entirely. Too bad for you two if you can't see that.

It's not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of the SUPREME COURT, which I'll be happy to quote for you - or you can just Google it for yourself if you'd like to understand completely the point I'm making.

Being suspended or traded has what, exactly, to do with this conversation about our legal system? Oh yeah...nothing.

And there is nothing right at all about feeling the way he feels, other that the fact that he has a right to feel that way, misguided as he may be, unless of course you'd like to be convicted of a crime and have your life ruined while the person accusing/convicting you can't prove the allegations against you.

Good GOD people.

C'mon Man...

SAINT_MICHAEL

I looked this up Saintsfan:

"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
"


So your raging on about semantics neglects to mention the word you keep using isn't even in the constitution.

saintfan

LMAO. If you're going to cite from Wikipedia, be sure and read the whole thing (and with Wikipedia, make sure you check the citations cause sometimes Wikipedia is woefully inaccurate):

The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the , be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4] To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:[1]

1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

You know what? There are lots of things we have in place, BY LAW, that were not part of the original constitution or even the various amendments.

So yeah brother, I'm 'raging on', but not about 'semantics' as you state, but rather about the attitude of people like you that are eager to make assumptions and convict and label minus any evidence - or at least minus ENOUGH evidence.

I think that where you and falconhater are concerned, one of two things (or both) are relatively clear: You either don't know what you're talking about and you are unwilling to get learned OR you are comfortable enough in your self-righteousness that you don't feel the need to get yourself up to snuff. In either case there's not much a rational person can do other than recognize that it certainly does take all kinds to make a world.

This from the supreme court circa 1895 bro:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

So you and falconhater keep on keeping on, and I suppose you can continue to wonder why people like me just can't figure out why people like you just don't get it. The information is available now more than ever, so there is no excuse not to know.

C'mon Man...