I must be the dumbest fucker alive

[Turd Ferguson]

Can it be proven that he did that to his wife? Last I heard, it was thrown out of court. Which means, legally, it never fucking happened.

Chances are, whatever happened between AI and his wife happened.

Also, to all of you people that love to condemn Michael Vick. He killed a fucking goddamn DOG! The most he should have gotten was a fucking fine, maybe house arrest. Fucking OJ can get away with murder and Vick goes to jail for a fucking goddamn piece of shit dog. The American Judicial system is fun isn't it?

I'm not going to open this can of worms, but Vick ran a dog fighting ring, with the losing dogs getting tortured and murdered by him and his thug buddies. He didn't just murder one dog and absolutely deserved jail time for it. That being said, he paid his debt to society and should absolutely be able to play in the NFL.

Donte Stallworth - Now that's a case where the American Judicial System proved how broken it is.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I say we're innocent until proven guilty.

There are always going to be crooked people doing some stupid shit in the world, but that shouldn't affect the masses.

I didn't miss your point Sly. I know that AI wasn't proven innocent, but he wasn't proven guilty either. Doesn't that mean, by default, that he is innocent? Or is it just, he might have done it?

 

[Slyfox696]

Alright, I walked right into that. Point being, some of us really do still hold to that belief, outdated and unrealistic as it may be.

You forgot the word "unmentioned". As in, no where in our Constitution will you ever read the words "innocent until proven guilty".

I say we're innocent until proven guilty.

You don't matter when trying to assess the guilt of Allen Iverson, because you were not a juror.

I didn't miss your point Sly. I know that AI wasn't proven innocent, but he wasn't proven guilty either. Doesn't that mean, by default, that he is innocent?

No, how can it? If I speed 2 miles over the speed limit and a police officer doesn't pull me over, does that mean I'm innocent? No, it just means I didn't get caught and/or reprimanded.

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is merely ideological belief.

Or is it just, he might have done it?

It's "the prosecution couldn't prove he did it, which means he may have done it, or may not have".

 

[Dexter]

You forgot the word "unmentioned". As in, no where in our Constitution will you ever read the words "innocent until proven guilty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

The Supreme Court would disagree with you.

 

[SSJPhenom]

No, how can it? If I speed 2 miles over the speed limit and a police officer doesn't pull me over, does that mean I'm innocent? No, it just means I didn't get caught and/or reprimanded.

You forgot to mention that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound, as well.

If you speed and don't get pulled over, kudos for you. You know that you broke the law, but according to the Judicial System, you are innocent because you weren't convicted or it wasn't proven that you broke the law.

If it weighs that heavily on your mind that you broke the law, turn yourself in.

 

[Slyfox696]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

The Supreme Court would disagree with you.

How can they? It's not there.

What the Court ruled there was an inference from the Constitution, where it guarantees the accused a fair trial, and from that, the Supreme Court concludes that in order to have a fair trial, the jury cannot come in prejudiced against the accused, and for a guilty verdict to come back, a jury must be convinced of said guilt based upon facts of the case.

However, that does NOT apply to any circumstance outside of a jury. And since Allen Iverson never stood before a jury, the "innocent until proven guilty" ideology does not apply.

 

[Dexter]

How can they? It's not there.

They disagree, and according to the way things work here, they're right and you're wrong. Supreme Court decision is law. The fact of this isn't arguable. The rightness or wrongness of it is, but the facts just aren't.

However, that does NOT apply to any circumstance outside of a jury. And since Allen Iverson never stood before a jury, the "innocent until proven guilty" ideology does not apply.

No argument on this point, jurisprudence != public opinion, so you're absolutely right here.

 

[Slyfox696]

They disagree

No they don't. You won't find a single Supreme Court judge who will say "presumed innocent until proven guilty" in the Constitution. Not one. Hell, you don't need a Justice, just get a copy for yourself and read. It's not there.

and according to the way things work here, they're right and you're wrong.

Ignoring for a moment Supreme Court cases which have been overturned, let's get back to the fact they never said it was there.

Supreme Court decision is law.

You obviously have no idea how our system works if you believe that.

The rightness or wrongness of it is, but the facts just aren't.

Ignore for a moment that the words "presumed innocent until proven guilty" do not exist in the Constitution, it STILL doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court ruling only applies to trial situations. It does not hold water outside of a jury trial. The ruling ONLY applies to a matter of LEGAL guilt or innocence. Keep in mind that OJ Simpson was probably guilty of the murder, he was just LEGALLY innocent.

No matter how you wish to argue this, you're wrong. I suggest you quit now.

 

[Dexter]

No matter how you wish to argue this, you're wrong. I suggest you quit now.

What is it with you guys and this "I'm right and you're a moron" attitude tonight? That's just making me not really want to have anything to do with you at all. I was enjoying the discussion but that kind of thing completely ruins the fun. Can I be so bold as to request an apology on that so we can go back to what I felt was a pretty enjoyable debate on an interesting topic or should I take from that comment that you're getting angry?

 

[Slyfox696]

What is it with you guys and this "I'm right and you're a moron" attitude tonight?

Who said anything about you being a moron.

All I said is I'm right, so I suggest you quit wasting our time.

Can I be so bold as to request an apology

Sure you can request one.


Although, I'll probably tell you to get over yourself and quit being so sensitive. But, feel free to request.

on that so we can go back to what I felt was a pretty enjoyable debate on an interesting topic or should I take from that comment that you're getting angry?

Angry? No, not angry. But I've defeated EVERY angle you can possibly play in this debate, so you should just concede defeat and we can move on.

 

[Dexter]

Wow. Yeah. The fun just got sucked right out of this one. I'm sorry you didn't feel like discussing this. Maybe next time.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wow. Yeah. The fun just got sucked right out of this one. I'm sorry you didn't feel like discussing this. Maybe next time.

I've discussed it plenty, and the majority of what you have said has been false, and I've proven it so.

Are you really telling me the only way you debate is by sipping tea with another while you check stock prices?

 

[SSJPhenom]

You'll have to forgive him Dexter, he always wins, in his mind.......

 

[Dexter]

You'll have to forgive him Dexter, he always wins, in his mind.......

I dunno, I haven't observed that so I'm not gonna judge the guy. It's just a waste of time to discuss anything with anyone whose mind is so obviously closed to any differing viewpoints. It's a mistake we all make though, I did something similar to Razor recently in the Cigar Lounge and ended up having to apologize to him for it. I was a total dick to the guy and it still bugs me a bit.

 

[Slyfox696]

I dunno, I haven't observed that so I'm not gonna judge the guy. It's just a waste of time to discuss anything with anyone whose mind is so obviously closed to any differing viewpoints. It's a mistake we all make though, I did something similar to Razor recently in the Cigar Lounge and ended up having to apologize to him for it. I was a total dick to the guy and it still bugs me a bit.

This isn't a case of differing viewpoints though, this is a matter of right and wrong.

You are not right. Innocent until proven guilty does not exist, AT ALL, in the Constitution. The Supreme Court may have INTERPRETED that from the Constitution, but the words themselves aren't there. Furthermore, the interpretation taken from the Constitution STILL don't apply in any manner EXCEPT that of a legal trial.

So, when we're discussing whether or not Allen Iverson is innocent or guilty of abusing his wife, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in any way, shape or form.

This is not a matter of viewpoint, it's a matter of fact vs. fiction. And what I have said is fact.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I dunno, I haven't observed that so I'm not gonna judge the guy. It's just a waste of time to discuss anything with anyone whose mind is so obviously closed to any differing viewpoints. It's a mistake we all make though, I did something similar to Razor recently in the Cigar Lounge and ended up having to apologize to him for it. I was a total dick to the guy and it still bugs me a bit.

I read that thread and while, I completely disagreed with you. Your argument with Razor was some of the best reading that I have ever enjoyed as apart of these here forums. You almost had me agreeing with you. That is what a true debater is supposed to do.

Good job.

 

[Dexter]

Good job.

Thank you. I did start out way harsher than I intended to though.