JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really believe that it was his keyboard commando posts that resulted in a guilty verdict from the jury.
 
"Anne!" Anne was on the springboard; she turned her head. Jubal called out, "That house on the hilltop — can you see what color they've painted it?" Anne looked, then answered, "It's white on this side." Jubal went on to Jill, "You see? It doesn't occur to her to infer that the other side is probably white, too. All the King's horses couldn't force her to commit herself . . . unless she went there and looked — and even then she wouldn't assume that it stayed whatever color it might be after she left." "Anne is a Fair Witness?" "Graduate, unlimited license, and admitted to testify before the High Court."

Just say'n ;)
All right, I'm going to reluctantly award you one point for quoting from Stranger In a Strange Land.
 
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really believe that it was his keyboard commando posts that resulted in a guilty verdict from the jury.
Which legally cannot be considered against you in that state.
 
Which legally cannot be considered against you in that state.
yeah, Id also like to know how what you say cant be held against you in any state?

Someone publishes they want to kill someone, then gets into a situation and they end up killing that someone... is not evidence of motive?
 
Facts over feelings, am I right?

Unless I guess the facts hurt your feelings :rolleyes:
And a followup from the same lawyer who wrote that article suggesting the court screwed up and could invalidate the conviction if appealed.

 
And a followup from the same lawyer who wrote that article suggesting the court screwed up and could invalidate the conviction if appealed.

Can't watch the video right now, but from the description:

Indeed, most of the arguments made in this motion are rather esoteric or even outright silly.

That said, there is one claim by the defense that, if true, completely INVALIDATES the guilty verdict returned by this trial's jury last Friday.

So he isn't (according to that) suggesting the court screwed up, he is reporting what the defence is arguing and makes clear that it's only "IF" it's true it will effect the verdict, but really that's just his opinion
 
Can't watch the video right now, but from the description:



So he isn't (according to that) suggesting the court screwed up, he is reporting what the defence is arguing and makes clear that it's only "IF" it's true it will effect the verdict, but really that's just his opinion
"and the court refusing to allow the jury to hear the evidence warrants a new trial..."
Its a very long video and I havent watched all of it just a few blips... but I queued up my link to just before that point.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Wes Knodel Gun & Knife Show - Albany
Albany, OR
Lakeview Spring Gun Show
Lakeview, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA

New Resource Reviews

Back Top