R. Kelly ? WTF?

[Zenister 0]

personally having evidence, having been there, being the one who saw, heard etc or being told that such and such happened by someone I trust is a FAR different thing than "the media said he did this"

If you say or do something to me or my friends that I disapprove of I have evidence to form my opinion and base my actions on that is one thing. Being told by a news source, the grapevine or even a state prosecutor that you have done something is different matter entirely.

I trust my friends, far and above the trust i place in the media or any elected official. But apparently public opinion is enough to convict for a great many. A sad state we have sunk to.... next we'll be burning witches again....

please stop building strawmen and pay attention the the actual words as written.

Quote

And where in the U.S. Constitution is it stipulated that people will be treated as "innocent until proven guilty"? I see stuff about due process, public and speedy trial, impartial jury... but nothing about presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

Implied innocence until the evidence is heard and weighed is fundamental to due process.

Quote

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."

What this means, in plain terms, is that constitutionally you cannot be executed, imprisoned, or fined without the proper course of justice taking place. Due process, itself, is not defined in the constitution, but is universally recognized as meaning what we term as "a fair trial."

Going forward from there, a fair trial by a jury of one's peers requires that the jurors approach the case with the thought that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the trial begins with the prosecution not having introduced a single piece of evidence, it follows that a defendant must be innocent, until proven guilty.

if you search you will find this explictly spelled out in many state codes... Nevada for example.

Quote

NRS 175.191 Presumption of innocence: Acquittal in case of reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to be acquitted.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1427)

NRS 175.201 Presumption of innocence: Conviction of lowest degree of offense. Every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and when an offense has been proved against him, and there exists a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees he is guilty, he shall be convicted only of the lowest.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1427)

and case law

Quote

The following text is take from the majority opinon in COFFIN v. U.S., 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. [156 U.S. 432, 454] It is stated as unquestioned in the textbooks, and has been referred to as a matter of course in the decisions of this court and in the courts of the several states. See 1 Tayl. Ev. c. 5, 126, 127; Wills, Circ. Ev. c. 5, 91; Best. Pres. pt. 2, c. 1, 63, 64; Id. c. 3, 31-58; Greenl. Ev. pt. 5, 29, etc.; 11 Cr. Law Mag. 3; Whart. Ev. 1244; 2 Phil. Ev. ( Cowen & Hill's Notes) p. 289; Lilienthal's Tobacco v. U. S., 97 U.S. 237 ; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430 , 7 Sup. Ct. 614; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 320; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224; Alexander v. People, 96 Ill. 96; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31, 11 N. W. 773; People v. Millard, 53 Mich. 63, 18 N. W. 562; Com. v. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224; Blake v. State, 3 Tex. App. 581; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; State v. Tibbetts, 35 Me. 81; Moorer v. State, 44 Ala. 15.

ps. many juristictions DO NOT allow defendants to be shakled in the court room as it can create the perception of guilt in many on the jury (those being the sheep who cannot differnentiate between 'accused of' and 'guilty of'. Only in extreme cases when the perpoderance of evidence and action indicates that the accused is a threat to the participants in the trial are shakles used. Even then jurys are advised that the presence of those shackles in no way implies they are guilty of the crimes they are being tried for.

less than 5 min of search, you do know about Google right??? or do you just like everyone to do your research for you??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Not neccessarily, in Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina the age of consent is 14.

As the mother of three daughters aged 15, 12, and 10 I have a hard time believing that a 14 year old has the mental capacity to decide that it is an okay decision to have sex with a man two or three times her age. I don't care what the law is in those states-- a 14 year old is a child..

The age of the man is irrelevent to the question of the mental capacity of the 14yo girl. She has the same ability to consent if the other person is 17, or 13.

I would agree that we can hold a 30 yo man to a higher duty of care than a 17 (or even 19) year old boy. He is acting improperly.

But I don't group it in the same category as forced sexual contact. And the article cited here claims the video was made between 1997 and now, which is so fucking vague it's hard to take seriously, esp when the family of the 'victim' claims it wasn't her.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

personally having evidence, having been there, being the one who saw, heard etc or being told that such and such happened by someone I trust is a FAR different thing than "the media said he did this"

Shouldn't matter. This doctrine of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" that you are leaning heavily upon does NOT specify "unless the crime was done to you or someone you know personally whose word you trust." You're fabricating an exception to cover my example, and it reeks of desperation.

Quote

Quote

And where in the U.S. Constitution is it stipulated that people will be treated as "innocent until proven guilty"? I see stuff about due process, public and speedy trial, impartial jury... but nothing about presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

Implied innocence until the evidence is heard and weighed is fundamental to due process.

Quote

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."

That says NOTHING about "presuming" a person "innocent" until proven guilty, now does it?!

Quote

What this means, in plain terms, is that constitutionally you cannot be executed, imprisoned, or fined without the proper course of justice taking place. Due process, itself, is not defined in the constitution, but is universally recognized as meaning what we term as "a fair trial."

You can be given a fair trial, receive due process, and not be penalized until convinction even if not "presumed innocent."

Please prove to me that this "innocent until proven guilty" thing is not a modern day fabrication, along the lines of "separation of church and state" or "you can have guns if you're in the National Guard," both of which are bullshit recent contrivances made specifically to distort things in a given group's favor, politically, even though they have no historical basis in fact.

Quote

ps. many juristictions DO NOT allow defendants to be shakled in the court room as it can create the perception of guilt in many on the jury

I have found myself agreeing with this. I see some cases where they have a guy in an orange jumpsuit and chains and his head is shaved. "Looks guilty." They shouldn't be able to do that. It taints the court proceedings in favor of conviction.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Zenister 0]

I'm not fabricating anything, your assumption reeks of ignorance.

I was (stupidly) attempting to respond to your straw man argument that implies i should not trust my own experience or the words of my friends as evidence before the law convicts them. I’m done chasing your straw men since you become belligerent and insulting every time one is burned down, so dont bother to wonder why no one (or why I dont at least) answers your ridiculous 'set up' questions.

Cant you read? i clearly quoted case law that is accepted by every US court.

you cannot be given a 'fair trial' without the presumption of innocence. You would think the quotes made that plain, but you seem to be playing at intentionally obtuse tonight...still no power?

I'm done trying to prove anything to you since you clearly have difficulty comprehending direct quotes from the case law that form the basis for our legal system. Presumption of innocence comes directly from the 5th amendment protections regarding due process; this has been accepted and expounded apon by the courts for a very very long time. In fact it has roots much farther back than the American legal system or US constitution, but since you cant be bothered to type the phrase into google and search through the relevant supporting evidence yourself for the answer, I'm not going to attempt to educate you any longer.

Horse, water, water, horse, you figure it out… I’m out, drink if you care to…

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Would I invite someone to sing songs unrelated to child pornography if they were accused of having it? Sure, if I liked their music.

Here we don't agree.

I would not let my kids play with Michael Jackson, or my 15 year old hang with R Kelly.

While they may be innocent...I would not risk my children, or support him when I have doubts.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 18]

Quote

accused.

innocent until proven guilty remember? or do you think we should repeal a few of our fundamental principles just because the crime you are accused of is socially repugnant?

Only if they are a lefty. If you are right it is the seriousness of the charge that counts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[misskriss 0]

Quote

The age of the man is irrelevent to the question of the mental capacity of the 14yo girl. She has the same ability to consent if the other person is 17, or 13.

I agree the age of the man is irrelevant but in this particular case the man is much older..

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Here we don't agree.

I would not let my kids play with Michael Jackson, or my 15 year old hang with R Kelly.

And here is where you guys keep losing me. Neither would I. But no one is talking about, well at least I don't understand why they're talking about, letting your kids hang out with or play with R. Kelly.

He was invited to sing at a caucus. I haven't been to many caucasus, but I don' tthink there's a lot of babysitting going on by the performers at them.

[turtlespeed 212]

But they are accepting, promoting, and embracing his morals by letting him perform his music as a REPRESENTATIVE of the caucus.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But they are accepting, promoting, and embracing his morals by letting him perform his music as a REPRESENTATIVE of the caucus.

And that's where we differ. I don't judge someone's morals based on accusations by third parties. To be cautious I wouldn't let someone who was accused of things like that to hang around my kids unsupervised. But I wouldn't use unproven allegations to judge whether they can perform at a public event.

[Ron 7]

You say this:

Quote

And that's where we differ. I don't judge someone's morals based on accusations by third parties.

Then you say this:

Quote

To be cautious I wouldn't let someone who was accused of things like that to hang around my kids unsupervised.

Thats a contridiction Kev

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

No, it's called making a decision based on all the criteria. See, if I just made blind judgments based on one piece of evidence with no forethought into other aspects I would be what you guys like, steadfast and determined. But when I evaluate issues based on all of the relevant criteria then I'm a flip flopper because I have different rules based on different situations.

[Ron 7]

Quote

No, it's called making a decision based on all the criteria

No in one sentance you say you would not treat him differently....Then in the other you say you would.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Yep, I would treat him one way when determining peronal interaction with my children, and treat him another based on performing on a stage.

Are you saying that anyone that you would alllow your children to see perform you would also allow to babysit for you?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Yep, I would treat him one way when determining peronal interaction with my children, and treat him another based on performing on a stage.

Are you saying that anyone that you would alllow your children to see perform you would also allow to babysit for you?

I would consider that either way he has influence in both situations, no matter how small - and in both, just the possibility that he has done anything sexual with a child would absolutely keep me from letting any of my family around him in ANY way I could avoid it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ron 7]

Quote

Are you saying that anyone that you would alllow your children to see perform you would also allow to babysit for you?

What I am saying is that I would not support anyone that has been accused of such an act...Now that does not mean I would attack them, but I would definitely not support him, or allow him to represent me.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Who was he representing. They put on a benefit concert to raise money. He was a performer at the concert. So what. So don't take your kids to see it.

[cliffharris 0]

Quote

Hmmm......wasn't the girl 14?

yeah, fourteen going on thirty-five.

Ever seen One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest? This thought reminds me of a line from that movie. Good ole R.P. McMurphey.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm......wasn't the girl 14?

yeah, fourteen going on thirty-five.

Ever seen One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest? This thought reminds me of a line from that movie. Good ole R.P. McMurphey.

that was random.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cliffharris 0]

I've seen the video...boy have I.

Nurse Ratchet couldn't move like that.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Who was he representing. They put on a benefit concert to raise money. He was a performer at the concert. So what. So don't take your kids to see it.

So you would have no problem having him play at a party you throw?

Even knowing that he has been charged with a crime like that?

You don't mind him representing you?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

You're asking two different questions. No, I wouldn't have a problem with him performing. Yes I would have a problem with him representing me. I don't consider someone elses performacne representative of me.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Yes I would have a problem with him representing me. I don't consider someone elses performacne representative of me.

Well then you are missing a very BIG part of life...

Ever remember your parents telling you not to hang out with the "bad people"?

You are looked at by who you choose to associate with.

You are judged even more by who you support

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Michele 1]

Quote

But they are accepting, promoting, and embracing his morals by letting him perform his music as a REPRESENTATIVE of the caucus.

And that's the core of the issue.

See, the far left has shown an understanding of the iconoclastic pop culture influence, and will use that when necessary to bring votes to their side of the table (i.e. Michael Moore, Whoopie G, Jeanneane Garafalo (I just can't spell her name...), and Al Franken. They DO influence people, as do some on the far right (Tom Selleck (remember the Rosie O'Donell incident?), Charlton Heston, and various others.).

The choice, however, of an accused pedophile (and yes, it's not just about child porn; however, the victim is refusing to testify against Kelly, from what I understand, so the prosecution is left with a lesser complaint.). R. Kelly is a wildly popular singer with the young crowd, and, if he says he supports a particular candidate, they will vote for the candidate he supports. A person at 18 is not as aware of the political ramifications of using their vote wisely...but if someone who they admire tells them what to do, they will do so. Consider fashion...Madonna and that weird bra, or the bustiers...Brittney Spears and the hiphuggers with crop tops. And so on. So it IS a real cultural phenomena, and is being used to create a voting block that otherwise would not be participating. And while I firmly believe that each vote counts, I'd rather see some research on issues and thinking through the problems at hand rather than voting one way because R. Kelly (or Tom Selleck, or Al Franken, or Joe Blow) says to.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And while I firmly believe that each vote counts, I'd rather see some research on issues and thinking through the problems at hand rather than voting one way because R. Kelly (or Tom Selleck, or Al Franken, or Joe Blow) says to.

Gee, i thought he was singing at a benefit concert for the cnogressional black caucus.

You guys are attributing activities and importance to this event that are undeserved.

He was performing a concert, that's what musicians do. He wasn't babysitting any kids, and he wasn't campaigning for anyone.