+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Allegedly Schmegedly (/showthread.php?tid=109924)
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Dennis S - 01-11-2011
Dakota wrote:
Well, in that case you are a reasoned fellow. Krugman, the "economist", and his ilk had practically written their pieces and stored it away for a day like this. Others are screaming at Obama from the sidelines to make this his Oklahoma City.
Why did you quote "economist?" Would you say: Brady, the "quarterback" or Hendrix, the "guitarist?"
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Mac1337 - 01-11-2011
What business does Krugman, yes the "economist", have to jump into this mess? You write your columns admiring command and planned economy.
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Dennis S - 01-11-2011
Dakota wrote:
What business does Krugman, yes the "economist", have to jump into this mess? You write your columns admiring command and planned economy.
How did you ever pass your citizenship test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - RgrF - 01-11-2011
Dennis S wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
What business does Krugman, yes the "economist", have to jump into this mess? You write your columns admiring command and planned economy.
How did you ever pass your citizenship test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What business do you have injecting yourself into and shitting on every thread on this side of the forum?
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Michael - 01-11-2011
cbelt3 wrote: Of course you can ask the Atlanta Olympics 'Not a Bomber' about that one. Richard Jewell.. I think...yup.
and
(vikm) wrote: I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing they're opening themselves up to a nice little lawsuit by not doing so. I know, it's a 1 in a trillion chance anything comes of it and they are probably willing to take that chance but...
That may be it--Richard Jewell apparently sued a half dozen entities and it looks like the only one that didn't settle was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Ca Bob - 01-11-2011
This is a special case in which there are many direct witnesses to a horrible crime, the killer was caught and held at the scene, and there is no likely defense except insanity. The news media have a system in which those suspected of crimes and those arrested for crimes become the "alleged" criminals because in most cases, that is exactly what they are at the time. They may be guilty in fact, but they are not yet guilty in law. This system is appropriate for the majority of arrests, allegations, and indictments, because lots of cases have evidentiary problems. A few of the accused will be found not guilty, and a few of those imprisoned will be exonerated after the fact.
There is a different side to this coin, which people forget: At the point that someone is convicted of a crime, we can refer to that person as the murderer, as the robber, or as the embezzler, because the legal system has determined this to be the case. Since the burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than for a civil case, there is no civil remedy for the convicted criminal if he wants to sue for being identified in the press as a criminal. If I want to write that Tom Delay is guilty of a crime, I can do so knowing that I am safe from a libel suit.
The other thing that people forget (sometimes too conveniently, it seems to me) is that the shooter is now in jail, will not be released on bail, and will never again be released from confinement. He may end up in a facility for the criminally insane, or he may end up in an Arizona or federal prison, but he is permanently out of free society. In this sense, he is already being punished (under the rule of protecting the people and assuring his presence at his own trial) even though he may not face trial for months or even years.
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - OWC Jamie - 01-11-2011
alleged is innocent before proven guilty
the trial didn't happen on youtube nor the media
obvious or not
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Uncle Wig - 01-11-2011
RgrF wrote:
[quote=Dennis S]
[quote=Dakota]
What business does Krugman, yes the "economist", have to jump into this mess? You write your columns admiring command and planned economy.
How did you ever pass your citizenship test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What business do you have injecting yourself into and shitting on every thread on this side of the forum?
Well it doesn't help that you clowns keep taking the bait and replying to him.
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - OWC Jamie - 01-11-2011
RgrF wrote:
[quote=Dennis S]
[quote=Dakota]
What business does Krugman, yes the "economist", have to jump into this mess? You write your columns admiring command and planned economy.
How did you ever pass your citizenship test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What business do you have injecting yourself into and shitting on every thread on this side of the forum? There certainly seem to be plenty of TP for both of you.
Re: Allegedly Schmegedly - Seacrest - 01-12-2011
http://www.slate.com/id/2235470/