TexasCHLforum.com

And by the way, what you refer to as the "technical law perspective", I call the Constitution. Go to a veteran's cemetery and tell the heroes there that they died for a "technical law perspective."

One is only beaten when he gives in to the foe. Does that look like me?

Considering the source, I take that as a compliment.

Apparently you can't distinguish between a threat and using sarcasm to make a point. There, in addition to the Constitution, I just taught you something else.
And by the way, there is no rule that a Christian must bow to the enemy and not defend his country and its form of government.

As far as the priests who are accused of abusing children, I would indeed "defend" them to the extent that I would expect the cases against them to be proven individually. Once each case was proven, I would expect that the law impose whatever penalties are appropriate. But then again, I am both legally and morally bound by that silly old Constitution. How convenient that you aren't.
And what about the "victims"? Have you never seen cases where someone claims to be a victim but when the facts come out, there was really no crime to begin with? Someone wanted publicity, or money, or for some other reason accused someone falsely? I guess we should just assume that everyone who makes a claim is a victim and act upon that assumption without a trial and proof. Maybe in your world, but not in mine.
Maybe I'll just get some friends together and start posting that "Abraham is a child molester!" If enough people say so, and claim to be victims, then you must be guilty. Why bother with facts or fairness? That's the way you like to play the game. If it's fair for others, you must think it's fair for you, too.

LOL! You will search a long time before you find anyone who accuses me of being a liberal!
You say that I am "gentle regarding criminals." You apparently haven't read anything I wrote. I believe in the Constitution. In fact, I believe in it so much that long ago I raised my hand and took an oath to defend it. I then backed up that oath by leading combat troops far away in not so nice circumstances. No one has ever relieved me of that oath, nor have I sought relief.
You seem to believe that to be accused is enough, and guilt can be assumed from the accusation. And further, that a prior offense means that someone is guilty of a present accusation. You and I are miles apart on that issue.
Those of us who have read the Constitution, and who believe in it, know that to assume guilt from a mere accusation is to spit upon the graves of those who have died for the due process rights guaranteed by our way of government. I fought for those rights, and I will not abandon them now. I demand them for myself, and I therefore will not refuse them to others.
IF, and only IF, a person is afforded his guaranteed rights and is found guilty, then punish him to the full extent of the law. But that comes AFTER the proper procedures have been followed in order to assure that we are not convicting someone on mere accusation. We fought a revolution over that sort of thing.
By the way, I have often found that where a person stands is often dependent upon where he sits. When (God forbid), you see your name on an indictment that says The State Of Texas vs. Abraham, then I bet you will be quick to lawyer up and demand all of the protections which you would deny to others.

rotor wrote:Cosby is definitely guilty and will end up in prison. The sad thing is that Cosby was an inspiration to so many young black people, pushing them into higher education, to be respectful and hard working. He had an important role in life to help these young people and now it turns out to all be a lie in that he really is the devil. His total worth was over $400 million. He could have done so much and it is tragic to see the potential that was lost. The final issue is that no matter how much you think you know someone, you never really know what their sexual behavior is like. The inner secrets of the mind.

This is one of the problems with all of humanity. What he taught in the Black community was not a lie, it was the difficult truth that so many needed to hear. The issue is not the fault of the message, but of the messenger. Once we find out that the messenger is flawed, we tend to disregard the message, no matter how valid it is.
If we demand sinless messengers, then we will never listen to any message.

[quote="Abraham
If you've proven a personal precedent for a particular type of unlawful sexual behavior, there's a reasonable expectation you'll quite possibly do it again.

Weirdo sex freaks aren't in the same category as bank robbers or car thieves or con men, they're depraved sickos.

Not just criminal....

Frankly, walking the plank would be too good for them.

As far as housing them as old guys in a rest home, nah, give em a hot shot and be done with it.

Oh, I'm too harsh?

How about if it was your mother, sister, aunt, etc.

Yeah, you'd change your mind right now, no waiting.[/quote]

Abraham, look at your quotes above. You seem to believe that we should convict someone in a given case based upon what they did in a previous case or cases, no matter how innocent they be now.

Abraham wrote:"Pretty dangerous thought process there. “He did it before, so he must have done it this time.”

Well, I respectfully disagree.

If you've proven a personal precedent for a particular type of unlawful sexual behavior, there's a reasonable expectation you'll quite possibly do it again.

Weirdo sex freaks aren't in the same category as bank robbers or car thieves or con men, they're depraved sickos.

Not just criminal....

Frankly, walking the plank would be too good for them.

As far as housing them as old guys in a rest home, nah, give em a hot shot and be done with it.

Oh, I'm too harsh?

How about if it was your mother, sister, aunt, etc.

Yeah, you'd change your mind right now, no waiting.

Now you know precisely why we have a Bill of Rights.

Pretty dangerous thought process there. “He did it before, so he must have done it this time.”

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Separately, there is the process. I firmly believe in the legal concept of guilty until proven innocent, and the idea that our legal system should be set up with a bias toward letting the guilty go free rather than wrongly convicted the innocent. On that note, I do have a problem with several aspects of this trial.

Uuuhhh, I hope you meant that the other way around.