"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4a47c1fb@news.povray.org...
> > somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>
> > > Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge
> people
> > > for what I think they think.
>
> >   Then you are being prejudiced, and judging people on appearances.
>
> Appearance?


Well just my take on this issue.

The court found it did not have enough information to determine guilt or
innocents. However from other evidence like the video posted earlier I would
not risk my children being in contact with someone in the same situation as MJ
was in. It is not a matter of guilt but the risk of guilt. Trust must be
reestablished.


She has no proof. He will still have to overcome her doubt even if he is
telling the truth. It is human nature.

This is also why OJ had to pay the wrongful death suit but not spend time in
jail. Different levels of proof.

I agree with Warp in that we should not pass improvable guilt but when the risks
are high caution should prevail.

Ah here is another example. If I am swinging a bat at you, you will try to stop
me and take my bat away even though I have not hit you yet. You would be
finding guilt in me and punish me by taking my bat. It is the possibility of
risk and not the fact of guilt.

There is a possibility MJ was innocent but I would not put my children at risk
to find out.

It was quite entertaining to see the ongoing debate. Things like this should
stimulate us all to think about things like this. I believe it is not thinking
that has lead to unbending laws.

Post a reply to this message