Gram? Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 If you witnessed someone committing a crime, would you still consider them innocent if they hadn't been tried? Absolutely yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Absolutely yes. Even if you saw them committing the crime and you were 100% certain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Originally Posted by JFKvsNixon View Post If you witnessed someone committing a crime, would you still consider them innocent if they hadn't been tried? Absolutely yes. If you saw them commit a criminal act would you consider them a criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Absolutely yes. So you have seen with your own eyes them commit a crime which as the witness who will be called to court will be essential in convicting them but despite having witnessed them committing the crime you will consider them innocent until your own testimony convinces a jury they are guilty? I think not. You're a troll wasting everyones time and I claim my £5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 So you have seen with your own eyes them commit a crime which as the witness who will be called to court will be essential in convicting them but despite having witnessed them committing the crime you will consider them innocent until your own testimony convinces a jury they are guilty? It doesn't matter what Gram would consider them to be. They'd be innocent regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 the excusing defies logic on here sometimes, maybe its cos he slaughtered muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad of 2 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 the excusing defies logic on here sometimes, maybe its cos he slaughtered muslims? What's that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 the excusing defies logic on here sometimes, maybe its cos he slaughtered muslims? It's because he has not been proven to slaughter anybody yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 It doesn't matter what Gram would consider them to be. They'd be innocent regardless. I wonder why we remand people in custody - isn't it mainly because we think it would be dangerous for them to be running loose before the trial? They haven't been convicted and therefore are considered "innocent" in legal terms. Everyone who'd seen them committing crimes or been on the receiving end would consider them criminals - and quite rightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 What's that supposed to mean? guess?........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.