Merged Gary Talis found innocent.

[Drudgewire]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145965

 

[Galileo]

O.J. was also found innocent....

OJ was innocent. He was proven innocent in a court of law. The evidence pointed to a different killer.

 

[Galileo]

Here's the timeline:

OJ kills Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

OJ gets acquitted

OJ gets his ass sued off in civil court where the evidentiary standards are much looser and gets nailed for the murders to the tune of 33 million.

Are you paying attention, John Lovetro?

OJ never killed anybody. F.Lee Bailey proved in court that OJ could not have done it, because the murder occurred after OJ was already on his way to the airport.

You need to start respecting our fine court system.

 

[fuelair]

OJ was innocent. He was proven innocent in a court of law. The evidence pointed to a different killer.

That is a blatant lie. You have officialy become pointless to me for your support of a murderer.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yeah but I heard someone say that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Incorrect. You are presumed innocent.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that really only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.

That is a blatant lie. You have officialy become pointless to me for your support of a murderer.

Galileo was good up until that last sentence. The evidence did not point to a "different killer". The jury, apparently, merely felt that there was reasonable doubt that O.J. was the actual killer.

(And don't think of playing semantic games, Galileo or RedIbis; you can't point to <$world_population - 1> people.)

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OJ never killed anybody.

OJ Simpson murdered two innocent people.

 

[dudalb]

OJ was innocent. He was proven innocent in a court of law. The evidence pointed to a different killer.

God, in other OJ threads the difference between Innocent and Not Guilty has been explained to you. Did not take, I guess.

 

[dudalb]

OJ never killed anybody. F.Lee Bailey proved in court that OJ could not have done it, because the murder occurred after OJ was already on his way to the airport.

You need to start respecting our fine court system.

Hey, you might want to fly down to New Zealand. You seem like a natural for Bert the troll in "The Hobbit".

 

[Fnord]

Yeah but I heard someone say that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Incorrect. You are presumed innocent.

Actually, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of criminal law.

I think there's a comma in there, but I'm not sure where...

You are presumed innocent, until proven guilty in a court of criminal law.

This would imply that it takes a conviction of guilt in a court of law to remove the presumption that you are innocent. This would seem to be the ideal case.

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in a court of criminal law.

This would imply that only in a court of law are you ever presumed innocent; and that by inferrence, you may be presumed guilty-as-Hell everywhere else. This would seem to be the real-world case.

 

[Bob Klase]

And, if I'm not mistaken, that really only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.

That's because civil cases do not give verdicts of guilty or not guilty. The give verdicts like liable or not liable, negligent or not negligent, etc. Since you can't be found 'guilty' in a civil case there's no need for a presumption of innocence.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Can we please get back to the topic? If you wish to discuss O.J.'s guilt or innocence, please start another thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[theprestige]

This would imply that it takes a conviction of guilt in a court of law to remove the presumption that you are innocent. This would seem to be the ideal case.

Why would this be the ideal case?

Don't get me wrong: I think that the rule of law, and courts of law established to uphold that rule, are excellent things, and a vital component of any civilized society.

But I'm not sure it's ideal that only a court of law can remove a presumption of innocence. Surely society can benefit from other means of establishing guilt. Situations where a community knows the truth, but the evidence cannot meet the rigor the court requires. Or activities which don't rise to the level of law-breaking, and thus fall outside the court system entirely, even though they are detrimental to the community.

And to be clear: I'm not advocating a parallel, extralegal system of crime and punishment. I'm firmly against things like vigilantism and lynching. But certainly a known child molester, acquitted in a court of law on a technicality, shouldn't expect to avoid public shaming and ostracism (or whatever other lawful treatment his community deems appropriate) simply by declaring "I'm innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!"

 

[CelticRose]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06172009/news/regionalnews/laura_heckler_beats_rap_174624.htm

All three Lovetros testified against Talis -- as did a Secret Service agent and several NYPD cops -- but a Manhattan Criminal Court jury found him not guilty of assault.

All those witnesses and he was still found not guilty? How the blazes did that happen? I'd love to hear some more details on this.

But I'm not sure it's ideal that only a court of law can remove a presumption of innocence. Surely society can benefit from other means of establishing guilt. Situations where a community knows the truth, but the evidence cannot meet the rigor the court requires. Or activities which don't rise to the level of law-breaking, and thus fall outside the court system entirely, even though they are detrimental to the community.

And to be clear: I'm not advocating a parallel, extralegal system of crime and punishment. I'm firmly against things like vigilantism and lynching. But certainly a known child molester, acquitted in a court of law on a technicality, shouldn't expect to avoid public shaming and ostracism (or whatever other lawful treatment his community deems appropriate) simply by declaring "I'm innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!"

What you seem to be advocating is witch hunting and harrassment. I, for one, would certainly hate to have my fate decided by the general public based on media reports and rumor.

 

[abenja1]

I think it's also important to point out that even though he was found not guilty, I can't think of a truther that condemned the act. One truther on here, Tweeter, even said the family "deserved it."

 

[Infoexcavator]

All those witnesses and he was still found not guilty? How the blazes did that happen? I'd love to hear some more details on this.

On the Alex Jones show Gary Talis told that the police officers testified that he had assaulted the victim, but the secret service agent said that he had not and the jury believed him. I dont have the documents from the trial so I can't know if Talis or NyPost is correct.

 

[kookbreaker]

I think it's also important to point out that even though he was found not guilty, I can't think of a truther that condemned the act. One truther on here, Tweeter, even said the family "deserved it."

Exactly.

Let us remember it is not like anyone went to Gary Talis's house and started pushing him around. He started an incident, and the only question is how much over the line he went. Perhaps, despite a woman in a wheelchair being involved, it was not enough for the jury.

 

[leftysergeant]

All those witnesses and he was still found not guilty? How the blazes did that happen? I'd love to hear some more details on this.

All it takes, really, is for one person not to accept the facts as the prosecutor presents them to be.

This could be because the dissenting juror canot see the connection between cause and effect, does not understand the wording of arguments, entertains some prejudice in favor of the defendant, or is just dumber than a sack of balsa wood hammers. Who knows?

I will not complain about the jury system myself. It is a protection against tyrants who would throw the innocent in jail

The down side is that a few ghastly creeps walk.

I am a deeply religious person (believe me or not.) I can live with it. It is a greater offense to to God to throw an innocent man in jail than it is to let even a killer walk.

 

[T.A.M.]

I guess he is free to "not" beat up on other handicapped people. Perhaps he will move up to "not" beating up seniors the next time.

TAM

 

[MG1962]

I am a deeply religious person (believe me or not.) I can live with it. It is a greater offense to to God to throw an innocent man in jail than it is to let even a killer walk.

Not just to God, but many judical systems are weighted on the concept that it is better to let a hundred guilty men walk than to jail one innocent one.

On the surface this seems a little odd - but the vast majority of criminals will find themselves in front of the courts again, and possibly that time a stronger case can be made

 

[Brainster]

It's NYC and the underlying incident is that Talis was protesting at a Laura Bush event; I'm not surprised he beat the rap.

The scary thing is that when this happened it was clearly one of the most outrageous things a troofer had done; Poplawski, Fitzgerald and von Brunn have raised the ante on that quite substantially.