Question for Jollie

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel3
  • Start date Start date
C

Cancel3

Guest
Jollie, lets look at a hypothetical situation.

Lets say we have an asshole out there who has committed a crime. We KNOW he has committed a crime and he has told us he will commit even more crimes.

Lets say he has said that his goal is to destroy our nation.


Without the proof normally required to convict him, what would you say we should do?
 
why just Panama ?lets pick some really sweet places like sone beautiful island.

How about some place with alot of gold deposits or say big oil reserves?

Oh yeah been there done that.
 
Jarod said:
She will not answer a direct question, typical conservative.
Click to expand...

What do you want to hear clown ? If you're talking about someone like OBL then he should be killed on sight.....just like Bill Clinton claims he tried to do when he was in office....does that answer this stupid hypothetical situation....
 
bravo said:
What do you want to hear clown ? If you're talking about someone like OBL then he should be killed on sight.....just like Bill Clinton claims he tried to do when he was in office....does that answer this stupid hypothetical situation....
Click to expand...

This stupid hypothetical question is a round about way of determining if you and Jollie are ready to throw out the US Constitution based on your paranoia.

But what are a few rights and freedoms if we get Osama, right? After all, he has threatened to kill americans. All you are proposing is to remove freedoms from ALL of them.
 
Desh said:
But Ossama make them stain their sheets at night so we must be forced to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Desh why were firing missles at Obama pre 9/11? What did he do that would cause us to try and kill him? Why wouldn't we have tried to arrest him and bring him to court? Does our constitution say we should fire missles at people without the approval of Congress?
 
Solitary said:
Jollie, lets look at a hypothetical situation.

Lets say we have an asshole out there who has committed a crime. We KNOW he has committed a crime and he has told us he will commit even more crimes.

Lets say he has said that his goal is to destroy our nation.


Without the proof normally required to convict him, what would you say we should do?
Click to expand...

Contradictory hypothetical. If we do not have the proof to convict him, we do not "KNOW" he is guilty. If we "KNOW" he is guilty, we have the proof to convict him! The mere fact that he confessed to the crime in your scenario, is evidence normally used to convict.

Now.... that being said, if the hypothetical is; We don't have physical evidence, rather circumstantial evidence, this is where a jury of his piers comes in handy, they can decide based on the circumstantial evidence, whether or not he is guilty.
 
Dixie said:
Contradictory hypothetical. If we do not have the proof to convict him, we do not "KNOW" he is guilty. If we "KNOW" he is guilty, we have the proof to convict him! The mere fact that he confessed to the crime in your scenario, is evidence normally used to convict.

Now.... that being said, if the hypothetical is; We don't have physical evidence, rather circumstantial evidence, this is where a jury of his piers comes in handy, they can decide based on the circumstantial evidence, whether or not he is guilty.
Click to expand...

Actually, I never said he confessed. I said he said he was going to commit more crimes.

And there are plenty of ways we can know a person is guilty and still not have any evidence on which to convict him.

Lets say I am the leader of a violent group. Lets say the members of this group defer to me on virtually all decisions. Lets even say that none of them has ever shown any ability to plan any great violent acts. Now if this group meets (and I am there) and then goes out and commits a violent and elaborately planned crime, its pretty obvious that I am guilty of ordering it. But since none of those other members will roll over on me, there is no evidence to convict me.

Make sense?

And suppose I have made it known that I will send my men out to do violent crime in the future.



Is this a clearer hypothetical question?
 
Solitary said:
Actually, I never said he confessed. I said he said he was going to commit more crimes.

And there are plenty of ways we can know a person is guilty and still not have any evidence on which to convict him.

Lets say I am the leader of a violent group. Lets say the members of this group defer to me on virtually all decisions. Lets even say that none of them has ever shown any ability to plan any great violent acts. Now if this group meets (and I am there) and then goes out and commits a violent and elaborately planned crime, its pretty obvious that I am guilty of ordering it. But since none of those other members will roll over on me, there is no evidence to convict me.

Make sense?

And suppose I have made it known that I will send my men out to do violent crime in the future.



Is this a clearer hypothetical question?
Click to expand...

It may be obvious to you, and you may have a pretty good idea, but you do not have proof to convict, nor do you "know for certain" the person is guilty. You "think" he is guilty, but that is all.

And there are plenty of ways we can know a person is guilty and still not have any evidence on which to convict him.

No, there isn't. If you know, then you have concrete iron clad evidence that can't be denied or refuted. If you don't have this, you can't say that you KNOW! You may think it, you may be 99.999999% sure of it, but unless you have solid evidence to support your belief, you can't proclaim him guilty. Sorry.
 
Lets say I am the leader of a violent group. Lets say the members of this group defer to me on virtually all decisions. Lets even say that none of them has ever shown any ability to plan any great violent acts. Now if this group meets (and I am there) and then goes out and commits a violent and elaborately planned crime, its pretty obvious that I am guilty of ordering it. But since none of those other members will roll over on me, there is no evidence to convict me.
Click to expand...

Let me also add, if you think someone is guilty, yet you have no physical or circumstantial evidence to tie them to the crime, you can't even bring the charges, much less convict them. The best known example of this, would be Al Capone. Although we were 99.99999% sure he had a key role in the murders of many, there was no physical or circumstantial evidence to bring the charge, and he was never charged with or convicted of murder.
 
So then if you have only assumptions that certain people are tied to terrorism but can't prove it they should not be held for long periods of time without charges? Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top