b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 2357719 (Thread)

# Not really.
They'd have to find something would they.

If he's guilty, lock him up, but assumptions in criminal cases bug me.
(I helped save b3ta! supermoore: HUNG, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:30, archived)
# They did issue a warrant...
www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=7741850
(I helped save b3ta! Sea Urchin Ceviche, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:32, archived)
# Well yes,
but the issuing od a search warrant does not implicitly imply that charges will follow does it? They might well, but it doesn't pay to assume.

*edit* Should have clicked that really. Doesn't invalidate the argument though. If he's done it I hope they lock him up for a long time. */edit*
(I helped save b3ta! supermoore: HUNG, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:34, archived)
# typically
in the US, at least, if you issue a search warrant then there are strong pre-existing allegations. i'd agree that 'assume' is a nasty word, but from the reports coming out yesterday over here it would appear that they thought they'd be moving towards an arrest warrant shortly. there's to be a press conference mid-day PST.

according to court tv it's already been issued:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3282773.stm
(rednc, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:36, archived)
# See above edit.
I'm not really defending him as such, just the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
(I helped save b3ta! supermoore: HUNG, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:40, archived)
# oh, i agree completely
but i'd already read the BBC/Court TV report when i replied to your post. i just failed to explain that. sorry.

EDIT: apparently innocent-until-proven-guilty does not apply in this country anymore, anyway. see Guantanamo Bay...
(rednc, Wed 19 Nov 2003, 15:41, archived)