whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? not much evidence of that concept

[msongs]

around here this morning eh?

[nolabear]

1. And your take? I'd love to hear it.

[Aristus]

2. The only people required to consider the suspect innocent until proven guilty are the jury.

Anyone else is free to presume guilt.

[USALiberal]

3. What the hell do you mean??? Nt

[H2O Man]

4. I'm unaware of

our being inside of a courtroom here. That is the only place that "innocent until proven guilty" has meaning. I suspect that DU:GD is a court of public opinion, where people are entitled to opinions.

[NutmegYankee]

5. Only applies in a court of law. Has NEVER applied to society.

[ZZenith]

6. Was that your van they hauled away, msongs?

[MrsCoffee]

7. Lulz.

[0rganism]

8. anyone here on a jury for a criminal case right now?

if so, please stop reading web pages and get back to work

otherwise, carry on.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. um. riiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhht.

Trumpistan just found one of their farm boys dingus-deep in the livestock out behind the barn.

[qazplm135]

10. it's alive and well where it belongs in the justice system

it's inapplicable to the court of public opinion or message boards or anywhere else.

So, wanna try again?

[dawg day]

11. Law Enforcement has to arrest someone before they can be tried.

If we truly insisted on "innocent before proven guilty," there would never be investigations or arrests.

The judge and jury have to deal with "innocent before proven guilty," but that's in the courtroom, and the suspect has already been arrested by then.

It's a great ideal, but it applies to the courtroom, not out there in the pre-trial time.

And notice how very very careful law enforcement was. Here's an extremely dangerous man with a long criminal record and a history of making threats about bombing.
But they didn't walk up and shoot him or assume that some gesture of his was to grab a gun. They were quite restrained.
A lesson to, say, the Cleveland Police Department, which really did assume that a completely innocent child playing in the park was guilty 2 seconds after they saw him, and without due process, executed him.

This bomb suspect is being treated very well, compared to most suspects.

Now he will be going before a judge, who can decide if he has to stand trial. Lucky him.

[Demwolv]

12. DNA.

They found his DNA on the package, unless we want more conspiracies that it was planted, this is the guy.

[Afromania]

13. If its that much of a concern there are lists of dead men and women that didn't get a chance to be

judged by anybody other than their executioner. I'd probably start my social justice warrioring day there first, just saying.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Wow! Didn't think you'd get so yelled at for such a simple concept...

Anyway, I'll take some of the same scorn by agreeing that even in the court of public opinion-- perhaps especially in the court of public opinion-- we should not simply pile on making assumptions and assigning guilt, even if it is apparent.

Public outcries and demands for "justice" have too often led to no justice at all. Even in such an obvious case as this, and with Trump as the prime mover of the hate, just sit back and watch it take its course.

Even if we are correct in our assumptions, the justice of the mob is not justice.

[violetpastille]

18. +1

[Hekate]

15. The number of bombs is up to 13, and IMO still counting. The intent is to assassinate Dem leadership

...and a lot of non-Party leaders and journalists who publicly take on Trump.

The suspect (there will be more, IMO) was not taken out in a hail of bullets but was taken into custody quietly. I have confidence he will have his day in court.

I'm not sure what your grievance is. As citizens, DUers are entitled to research public records and draw our own conclusions. We are allowed to speculate. So far I have not seen anyone here call for the MAGAbomber's lynching.

[MineralMan]

16. I leave that to courts and juries.

We can form our own conclusions, based on whatever evidence we have.

[sarisataka]

17. That only applies

when the accused is someone we don't Want to be guilty. Then there would be vociferous posts advocating the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Since the accused perfectly fits the bill of what we have expected the perpetrator to be...

[blogslut]

19. Jeff Sessions agrees with you!

Heck of thing.

[msongs]

20. facts presented at trial will result in a verdict of innocence or guilt. obsolete

I know.