You have some sort of bee in your bonnet about my views on the subject of the presumption of innocence, an issue that is wholly irrelevant here, which you do not understand -- that's ambiguous, but I think you understand neither my views nor the legal doctrine -- and are not interesting in trying to grasp either. My own ideas are quite conventional, so I can only assume that you are are not interested in trying to persuade anyone of your own bizarre notions, but only in making paradoxical statements, statements which you will not allow anyone to draw any conclusions from, as you feel free to do with the views of others, but only to parrot or agree with. I do not find your views on the presumption of innocence, insofar as I understand them, plausible or enlightening, and I do not find discussion on the subject with you worthwhile. Please do not raise the subject to me anymore. I will not discuss it with you.
jks
--- billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
> At 3:20 PM -0800 2/12/02, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
>
> > I think, though I am not sure, that he the
> >plaintiff here was never prosecuted for going for
> the
> >cop's gun. (If he had been acquitted, he'd have a
> very
> >powerful case, and the matter would probably have
> been
> >settled.)
>
> Which is only to concede my point. You are saying
> that if he had been tried and proved his innocence,
> he would have a stronger case. But since he hasn't
> been tried, the law will be free to assume he is
> guilty. So his case is flawed unless he can prove
> his innocence.
>
> That is the very essence of the doctrine of guilty
> until proved innocent.
>
> >The guy's a plaintiff. He's not a criminal
> defendant.
> >His innocence of a crime is not an issue. Even if
> he
> >did it, what's at issue is not whether ge committed
> a
> >crime, but whether the cops used excessive force.
>
> You're right, what's at issue is whether the cops
> attempted to murder him. Obviously if they did he
> would be entitled to some compensation, which is the
> nearest thing to justice he can dream of.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
No, what is at issue in the case is whether the cops used excessive force in violation of the guy's constitutional rights. They are also not criminal defendants in an attempted murder prosecution.
It seems to me, moreover, that you have prejudged the issue. If they used excessive force, he's entitled to compensation. If he tried to grab a cop's gun, and if he dids once cannot assume that he had any benign motive, then it's at least arguable (not not anything more about the cicrumstances) that they did not use excessive force and were entitled to shoot him. Neither of us knows the evidence in the case.
jks
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com