Squeegiebo Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) And you are obviously on the same IQ level of one of the apologist who did serve on one of those juries who let Williams, Simpson and Blake off. "Because someone did something in the past makes him guilty of doing it this particular time?" Doing something in the past doesn't make you guilty, but sure as shuckse makes it probable that you did. That's how they caught John Couey in Florida, asshead. I'm sure that family in Florida who's daughter was taken from their home raped and killed by the conviceted sex abuser agrees with yoru thinking. 763516[/snapback] It is precisely because of slows like you that we have the following Rule of Evidence: FRE 404 (a) Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion... ( b ) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. ... Edited April 4, 2005 by Squeegiebo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTen Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 I think we are all missing the point here. I do not care that he was found not guilty. The fact is is that he DID kill someone by getting drunk and driving in the past. You think that that would change his habbits in the future when it comes to alcohol? Guilty or not he is an a$$hole for continuing to drink and drive, wether "legally" drunk or not, especially after you have taken some innocent persons life beacuse you could simply not taken a taxi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Concerning court cases, justice, and rich people, some of you might be interested in the following paper: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/...nequalityWP.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 I believe the 'courtroom of public opinion" has also already convicted Barry Bonds of steroid use so why hasn't he been suspended yet?763222[/snapback] Perhaps he has -- maybe the inexplicable length of his arthroscopic knee rehab is the same kind of cover deal some suspect Michael Jordan got from the NBA for gambling offenses ... a year off to play "baseball" just after one flair up of allegations and a year of "retirement" just after another ... Maybe there's good conspiracy theory here and Bonds cut a deal -- maybe that's why he didn't get called to DC ... Hmmm .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.