Morgan

Tell me do people force those pills down other peoples throats to intentionally kill them... and do they do this also at a rate of 60 people per minute?

Morgan

Lets back up as your going on another tangent, we originally were talking about your the burden of proof,quote:
The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused..Why must I have to prove my innocence?? Under our judicial process I am inocent until proven guilty...
along with your snarky remark... or did you forget that about our court system??

In actuality, all of which you just wrote is after the fact. I disagreed not with the written law but in reality, which I stated. You then continued with how we are presumed innocent, which again is different from reality, as I stated my case for. If a person is arrested under the law the may be presumed innocent but in reality, when they are arrested they are assumed guilty and held. My point, if they were truly presumed innocent they should be simply free to go. If a person now has a charge against them, it is on his cost(and burden)... not the taxpayer,(as in the DA), to find a defense counselor to PROVE his innocence, as I said before, all that presumed innocence means is that you do have a right to counsel and a court date.

Our court system ideally may be the best but needs to be maintained and not falter.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

No. I'm using your logic. All of the substances that I mentioned, and many more are killing people by the thousands because they aren't being used for their intended purpose just like the guns you want banned.
If we want to stop the carnage, we need to ban those opiods that are killing kids, wrecking families, and lives.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

60 people per minute? Where did you come up with that?
With the known addictive nature of those drugs, prescribing, or selling them isn't much different than forcing people to take them. They should be banned.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Incorrect, we were originally talking about the presumption of innocence, the accuser having to prove their accusations and burdon of proof came up in the course of discussion later..
You infatically denied “we are innocent until proven guilty,” repeatedly, no less...

All of which I wrote is not after the fact; it is fact... Nor did you comment on the law aspect at all other than your curse remarks that I live in a book, dont know what Im Talking about etc... You did argue your case on your obvious swayed presumption of law ( meaning you see it as a rouse) and on emotion.. < The women that lost everything including her children because the husband had money..There’s more to that story as typically mothers get custody with fathers sharing in the expense of their children..> moot point to our discussion..

We have debated innocent until proven guilty and how we get to that part.. I never said the accused may not have to prove, I said the accuser has to prove their allegations to then warrant the accused to defend it.. I said that in any number of posts..I also gave you procedural aspects of what happens if guilt is not proven at the close of their presentation, etc..

How do we truly know the accused is not guilty and they should just be able to walk away?? The burdon of prove must condemn him, absent the proof then the accused can walk away...and many do..

Anyway~~ innocent until proven guilty is the law and everything in between is what the presumption of innocence causes to happen and stands for~~accusation, charges, finding of allegations through discovery, trier of fact, dismissal or finding by the jury.. Under the presumption of Innocence the accused has a right to know his accuser and have the accuser prove the allegations... If there was no requirement to prove them what a mess we would have.....

Our judicial process is the best and yes, painstaking measures required to insure it is done following the laws that govern the process.. Checks and balance required not expected...Yet, sometimes anyse takes pllace..

Look at what our previous DOJ and AG has done to flagrantly abuse the process..?They should already have been charged, but this is another topic all together..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

They sure don't mind getting them addicted to keep up those office visit payments either!! And to keep their kick backs from the pharm companies in coming..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Many things have been covered in here that clearly show they kill.. Kill much more than any guns that is a proven and doesnt even need debating~ the numbers establish it.!!

archie bunker Loc: Texas

And it's not just the number of people killed by the drugs. Many are killed by people in order to obtain them.
Did anyone force them to take them to begin with? No, but after taking them for extended periods, the addiction forced them to do whatever they had to to obtain them.
Did anyone force anyone to pick up a gun, and kill? No, but how many of these killers are on drugs other than narcotics? Mind altering types of drugs that twist them all up to where reality ceases to exist for them.
But we have to ban guns to stop the killing......
We have bigger problems in this country than guns in my opinion. Pharmaceuticals being one of them. Maybe one of the biggest.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

You are a slow learner M....maybe one day you will actually learn somethng.

Morgan

No, it wasn't, go back to the original post... the presumption of... is what you added to it after I said... guilty until proven innocent...in reality, it is my opinion if you like, not in the written word but what actual is, and I will stand by that. The burden you believe is on the accuser to prove the guilt, that may true when there is a plaintive involved. But in a case where for example a black person is arrested simply due to fitting a description and he is arrested, he is held in jail if no one bails him out until his court hearing, do you in reality now call that "presumed innocent", no, it gives you the right to counsel and a hearing. But if you're up against the state the REAL burden is on you, and the cost of an attorney, that's how I see it. Presumed innocence not literal it is in the wording to grant you a trial if you plead that you are innocent. Again you are assumed guilty and the real burden is on you to prove otherwise, and that is at the get go.


Your quote: "How do we truly know the accused is not guilty and they should just be able to walk away?? The burdon of prove must condemn him, absent the proof then the accused can walk away...and many do.."

Do you not see how your own words are contrary? That's correct, due to the fact he is really "assumed guilty" which is why he is unable to walk away until his trial and of course, it's to enforce people don't flee, but if you don't have anyone to bail you out, you stay in jail, is that then presumed innocent? Presumed innocent is basically a catchphrase to allow you a trial. All of what you've stated is true but it is after the fact and the process of the arrest.I suppose we're into the logistics of who has the real burden, and I am referring to criminal charges, not a civil suit. If you are brought to court and cannot disprove the charge, you're going to jail, unless there is a technicality and the charge is able to be dismissed, which yes rarely happens, it's usually by a lawyer who finds the technicality for the defendant, not the DA/plaintiff's attorney.

I don't know if our judicial process is the best, I would have to go research throughout the world to see if that were actually true. For example, I don't say we have the best education just because I'm an American. I think we use to have the best school system, we know for sure we can't say that anymore.So do we have the best judicial system? I know we have the most incarcerated...does that make us the best?

Morgan

Tell me what do not understand about intention? What do you not understand comparing a personal overdose, and shooting into a crowd? It really is an unreason...able argument. People dying from drugs and people getting innocently murdered are completely different spectrums and if you refuse to see that, it makes no sense to go on with this conversation. I'm not saying to ban guns, but that argument is as extreme, it's just the other side of the same coin. As far as drugs, maybe more control over them also. Now kids are doing tide pods...really, wtf... should we do away with detergents? The biggest problem is staring us in the face, we are becoming a very ill society, and the root of that problem needs to be addressed and quickly or things will continue to escalate.

Morgan

Thank you for your continued selective input.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

So what's your solution?

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Root cause needs to be address quickly, ok how do we get rid of you liberals,quickly

Morgan

This time I'd like to hear yours. You may not believe this but I do think it is in mental health, if we think about it, we would find that we would be taking care of both issues at the same time, for the people who abuse drugs and the people who fall off the cliff and begin shooting people, as if that will actually solve something in their twisted mind. Both clearly are rooted in the same place, the mind.

At the same time, we need to take a serious look at who we promote the gun. It is cool, and if you are toting one you are powerful and the one in control. One reason why I use to love Steven Segal movies. He was all about self-defense and not about guns, he usually took them away and hit them with it, LOL.

So what's yours?