The Trial Begins

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The solution is simple, Mr. Thask. Put up the bail money for those eligible and then they can go home. Gotta put your money where your bleeding heart is.

If the presumption is really that the suspect is "innocent until proven guilty"...why the need for bail? Why should the "innocent" need to bail themselves out of jail? There is no presumption of innocence...the truth is that the suspect is presumed GUILTY, and is incarcerated...and then he must prove himself innocent in court in order to be released and be a free man again.

[Tom]

No, the state must prove his guilt. Burden is on them, not the defendant. That is the considered innocent part.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, the state must prove his guilt. Burden is on them, not the defendant. That is the considered innocent part.

A man cannot be incarcerated before trial and still be presumed innocent. When they lock you up while you are awaiting trial...then you are presumed GUILTY. Innocent people are home sleeping in their own beds.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the presumption is really that the suspect is "innocent until proven guilty"...why the need for bail? Why should the "innocent" need to bail themselves out of jail? There is no presumption of innocence...the truth is that the suspect is presumed GUILTY, and is incarcerated...and then he must prove himself innocent in court in order to be released and be a free man again.

Know what "flight risk" means? The presumption is that man is not trustworthy, which goes to the heart of my universal Law of Distrust.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A man cannot be incarcerated before trial and still be presumed innocent. When they lock you up while you are awaiting trial...then you are presumed GUILTY. Innocent people are home sleeping in their own beds.

This is why the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the US provides for a SPEEDY TRIAL.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A man cannot be incarcerated before trial and still be presumed innocent. When they lock you up while you are awaiting trial...then you are presumed GUILTY. Innocent people are home sleeping in their own beds.

I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that reasonable cause exists that kicks in the legal process, all tilted toward the accused (habeas corpus, bail, etc.) and all temporary until the case is presented. Bail is to ensure you show up, and no bail is for public safety if you are charged with particularly serious crimes. And as PA says, a speedy trial is required.

[Tom]

Judge is being way to easy on the defense.
He let him actually enter "his" opinion of what Floyd said (I ate too many drugs).

To me, grounds for a mistrial.
Appears the fix is in for an acquittal.

[davew]

Saw this, what is antifa? an idea?

[Rohirrim]

Twitter

[xtb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A man cannot be incarcerated before trial and still be presumed innocent. When they lock you up while you are awaiting trial...then you are presumed GUILTY. Innocent people are home sleeping in their own beds.

Would you have felt comfortable if Charles Manson had been released on bail prior to his trial? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, D.C. Beltway snipers et al.? I'm assuming they were not but I could be wrong.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A man cannot be incarcerated before trial and still be presumed innocent. When they lock you up while you are awaiting trial...then you are presumed GUILTY. Innocent people are home sleeping in their own beds.

The presumption of innocence applies to the trial requiring that the prosecution prove guilt. Common sense is why many are locked up awaiting their alleged "speedy trial".

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by xtb

Would you have felt comfortable if Charles Manson had been released on bail prior to his trial? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, D.C. Beltway snipers et al.? I'm assuming they were not but I could be wrong.

I don't want ANY violent criminal to be released on bail...what I am arguing against is the much-publicized stated presumption that the accused is supposedly "innocent until proven guilty". The accused is imprisoned because he is suspected of GUILT...and the trial determines whether he will again be a free man or not. The initial presumption is that the man is GUILTY, and the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is just meaningless legal rhetoric...IMO. If there was no initial presumption of guilt...then there would be no pre-trial incarceration.

Do you suppose even for a second that the killers whom you've named above -- and God knows how many more -- were "presumed innocent" before their trial? This legal principle states that EVERY person accused of ANY crime is considered innocent until proven guilty...which is obviously an ABSURD proposition. Perhaps if it said "some people accused of some crimes...", then there would be some truth to it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The presumption of innocence applies to the trial requiring that the prosecution prove guilt. Common sense is why many are locked up awaiting their alleged "speedy trial".

That's right. The "presumption of innocence" principle applies only within the confines of the courtroom...and should not be mentioned outside of it. There is no "presumption of innocence" out on the street, or in a police station.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

https://twitter.com/OmarJimenez/stat...81480563953667

It's kind of hard to have both toes off the ground in that position. Is there a photo that shows that? Or is it an assumption that both toes are off the ground?


Of course whether or not he had both toes off the ground doesn't do much good if the autopsy says Floyd didn't die of asphyxiation. It might prove that he used undue force.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't want ANY violent criminal to be released on bail...what I am arguing against is the much-publicized stated presumption that the accused is supposedly "innocent until proven guilty". The accused is imprisoned because he is suspected of GUILT...and the trial determines whether he will again be a free man or not. The initial presumption is that the man is GUILTY, and the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is just meaningless legal rhetoric...IMO. If there was no initial presumption of guilt...then there would be no pre-trial incarceration.

Do you suppose even for a second that the killers whom you've named above -- and God knows how many more -- were "presumed innocent" before their trial? This legal principle states that EVERY person accused of ANY crime is considered innocent until proven guilty...which is obviously an ABSURD proposition. Perhaps if it said "some people accused of some crimes...", then there would be some truth to it.

You just did it yourself by stating "I don't want ANY violent criminal to be released on bail". If they have not been proven guilty, why do you call a defendant a criminal?

Some crimes are so egregious or the defendant has a history of committing offenses while on bail, that the risk cannot be taken. It's like they are in a limbo because if they were considered to be guilty, wouldn't they have a prison sentence? Nothing is absolute but the vast majority of people charged with a crime and awaiting trial are not held without bail, especially these days.