ANSWERS: 9
  • Technically yes he is, but with so many witnesses its hard to deny the facts.
  • That is why America is so great. Absolutely, he is innocent until proven guilty. He is also entitled to a defense. I do not, however, think there will be any trouble finding him guilty. I will say, I would not want to defend him if I was an attorney. Insanity is the only chance he has of getting off. I do not think he was insane, though. Just my opinion. +5
  • In a perfect world but? Did this need to happen? he made it know to people that he wasn't right, I would have thought that other shrink would;d have perused it. There is always a warning yet people don't heed it.
  • The day there isn't a presumption of innocence is the day everything we've fought for since 1775 is lost.
  • NO, the term was intended to protect innocent people from persecution as well as prosecution by the STATE which had and has the power and capacity to do both and most of the time does, but where there is money to be made I'm sure you will hear otherwise, because Practice and Intent are 2 very different things, as a matter of fact I would say that in this case and others like them that no trial is really needed as there is no question here as to the events, only where there is a real and legitimate question as to whether a person committed the crime they are accused of is one "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty" this person is not being accused he was caught and shot in the commission of that crime so no he is NOT innocent and there fore is NOT presumed to be so.. of course like I said where there is money to be made ... ~Nemo~
  • he is not innocent, everyone saw what he did
  • Of course.....and I hope he gets his day in court....that's the only way we will ever know if we have the right ...person...or not.
  • Yes but he obviously needs help if he killed all those people to save them from war. Probably crazy,yes?

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy