It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Sinnthia
I agree with you.
But I thought she was shot in the back of the head?
Originally posted by Marked One
Oh really? He's innocent? That's a good way to make ATS look bad on the media. We're already being watched. (NOT by government goons. Something far worst--THE MEDIA! The same media that likes to twist things around to sound like the truth. The same media the OP is bashing. Yet he's giving them ammunition.) Way to go.
Originally posted by Marked One
Oh really? He's innocent? That's a good way to make ATS look bad on the media. We're already being watched. (NOT by government goons. Something far worst--THE MEDIA! The same media that likes to twist things around to sound like the truth. The same media the OP is bashing. Yet he's giving them ammunition.) Way to go.
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
Originally posted by drew1749
Honestly, they have him on charges that he doesn't need a trial for.
Attacking someone from Congress is a huge crime...not to mention the other people who died.
A judge and a kid to name just a few...this isn't some game that we can play the blame game with.
Terrorists shouldn't get trials IMHO.
But that's just my opinion, I'm sure you guys have a different one...and that's all good.
Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
As of right now he is 100% innocent. He has not been found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is not to say that he did not do it, however the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
Originally posted by vqsnapp
Innocent until proven Guilty in a court of Law, that is the mandate for the courts. We are not in the courts so Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to us as bystanders to this event. Everybody is going to have an opinion and unfortunately nobody here is really knowledgeable enough about the circumstances of that tragic day to be able to change the minds of everyone opposing them.
All we can really do is keep an open mind and use common sense and logic. Personally based on that I have seen and heard I believe he is guilty based on the witness reports and background of the "Alleged" shooter. I've been disgusted and shocked in this thread especially by the "little girl was a human shield crowd" seriously??
You want to know why the little girl was shot? go to youtube and search "full auto glock" the gun is extremely hard to control on full auto, if Jared did empty a 33 shot mag in a couple of seconds I believe the gun was full auto and he just sprayed randomly.
Originally posted by drew1749
Honestly, they have him on charges that he doesn't need a trial for.
Attacking someone from Congress is a huge crime...not to mention the other people who died.
A judge and a kid to name just a few...this isn't some game that we can play the blame game with.
Terrorists shouldn't get trials IMHO.
But that's just my opinion, I'm sure you guys have a different one...and that's all good.