Chris Dorner to be first US citizen targeted by drones on US soil (bias, claim)

[Odie]

Originally Posted by Electric Blue

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Uh???? Guess you're blind.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

dont be moronic

if i walked up to you and shot you in the head in front a crowd, i would *NOT* still be innocent until proven guilty. I added this because I believe this was your intent. If not pardon me for misunderstanding. I am not trying to change what you say for my benefit.

again, dont be moronic

Umm yeah you would be...

Don't be what you claim others are...

It derives from old common law.

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. <- Sorry, if this Latin is a TOS violation please erase it.

Which mean, "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies."

While not explicitly codified into US law it was affirmed by Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist."

The closest thing to your argument is Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978].

"... the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence... "

Absence the existence of contrary evidence all people are presumed innocence.

Now you will say that "Someone seeing the crime is contrary evidence." False.

The Federal Rules of Evidence (States are free to use similar or different rules but the majority have adopted the Federal rules) require evidence to be presented in court. This evidence, while presumed admissible must meet certain standards such as reliability and are subject to challenge by defense attorneys.

Any evidence NOT presented in court has no legal standing.

So legally, if you shoot someone, 100 people see you do it and the news records it you are STILL presumed innocent until all relevant evidence is subjected to the scrutiny of the court AND then jurors render a guilty verdict.

Absence both of those conditions you are not guilty and in the legal sense innocent.

In the general usage of the word innocent you can indeed NOT be innocent but also be not guilty. However, when discussing law it is the legal usage of the term innocent that applies...

[Odie]

Originally Posted by 718native

i swear if i was some sort of cia spy I would be all over websites like these to find people we need to look into.

Like that's not already being done. And our basic freedom of speech being voilated.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Wow people are actually defending this man.


I can understand defending someone that you believe to be innocent, I just fail to see how you people came to the conclusion that he is innocent.

I am not defending him, I just think that it is always the cops who say that the person was killed to protect life. kind of a copout. more like he was killed to save face for the cops. he also might have had information that could have been very relevent as well.

now we will never know.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Odie

Smh. I give up. It's impossible to argue the point that he was set up, evidence planted, emails sent by someone else, etc.

Evidence of the above? Otherwise, you are just talking out of your nether regions.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by aneftp

Think about this:

If Dorner is a cold blooded killer than:

1. Why did he tie up the 2 maids and not harm them? Think about it. He could have used a silencer and killed them without anyone knowing about them for a much longer time.

2. When he car jacked the 2nd truck (he took the maid's purple truck). If Dorner was being pursued already which he was. He could have just shot the owner of the truck point blank and taken the truck by force. Dorner even let the owner take his dog out of the truck before taking off.

The general public was never in danger.

Dorner has a gripe with the cops (and by 2nd hand, killing their family to harm the cop emotionally).

While I think Dorner went overboard, he did have some sense of courtesy not to harm civilian not associated with the police.

And the LAPD's response? They "reopened" up the investigation for his firing but didn't hire an outside 3rd party reviewer. Think about that.

same response as to the other poster who brought up this weak point:

Originally Posted by uggabugga

the fact that he doesn't kill every single person he has a chance to kill means he's not evil?

geez, use some logic here.

[Odie]

Originally Posted by Arus

Evidence of the above? Otherwise, you are just talking out of your nether regions.

Ya know Arus, we need people like you. When SHTF, and it will, the weakest links will be taken first. That leaves time for others to bug out. You'll willingly do whatever you're told without question. So I guess, thank you.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by aneftp

Think about this:

If Dorner is a cold blooded killer than:

1. Why did he tie up the 2 maids and not harm them? Think about it. He could have used a silencer and killed them without anyone knowing about them for a much longer time.

Just because he didn't doen't mean he isn't a killer. He had already killed two innocent people, and now two cops; wounding 2 others.

2. When he car jacked the 2nd truck (he took the maid's purple truck). If Dorner was being pursued already which he was.

He took the truck prior to being chased to the Cabin. The search for him at Big Bear was down to a minimal level, because the police believed that he wasn't in the area. it was only when he confronted a game warden was it known that we was still in the area.

the police thought that he was heading or was already in Mexico.

He could have just shot the owner of the truck point blank and taken the truck by force. Dorner even let the owner take his dog out of the truck before taking off.

Just because he didn't choose to shoot someone at that time, doesn't absolve him of the people he had already shot.

The general public was never in danger.

Oh. BS. Tell that to the two hostages he held up at Big Bear since Sunday night.

Dorner has a gripe with the cops (and by 2nd hand, killing their family to harm the cop emotionally).

and he had legal recourse that he could take if he felt that he was wrongfully terminated and used that opportunity to expose what he felt was corruption. He took the coward's way out.

While I think Dorner went overboard, he did have some sense of courtesy not to harm civilian not associated with the police.

Tell that to the family of the young couple who had nothing to do with his dismissal. Their only guilt? Her father was the man who defended him (DEFENDED him) at his appeal for dismissal.

And the LAPD's response? They "reopened" up the investigation for his firing but didn't hire an outside 3rd party reviewer. Think about that.

That is the correct response. Different administration, different people. That still doesn't give him any reason to shoot innocent people.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Odie

Ya know Arus, we need people like you.

Yes, to point out the stupid lies being posted as fact when they are not.

When SHTF, and it will, the weakest links will be taken first.

We are not at war, and you need to check your paranoia at the door.

That leaves time for others to bug out.

No, it'll be people like you that won't be able to think and be the first fodder for the masses.

You'll willingly do whatever you're told without question. So I guess, thank you.

No I question. I just know not to make false statements and pass them off as fact as you have tried to do so many times.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by trlhiker

The proof is in his writtings and his actions. the man was a cold blooded murderer who deserved exactly what he got.

His subsequent choices did nothing to validate his version of the truth of police brutality and cover up.