Posted on 02/17/2013 5:51:58 AM PST by NamVet71MP
He's gutted their healthcare, plans to cut their pay and apparently, doesn't trust them either. David Codrea over at Gun Rights Examiner points out that Marines marching in President Obama's second inaugural parade recently were caring rifles without bolts, meaning they were removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Forgetting for the moment the discussion about Obama’s attitude towards the military, it strikes me as just plain dumb to disarm military personnel in these situations. If some terrorist group was planning an attack during a public event such as this, wouldn’t it embolden them to know that the military in attendance were unarmed, and therefore were not in a position to take action to stop them?
A CIC who is afraid of his own troops. What’s wrong with that picture?
Am I smelling new federal gun legislation around civilian parades that includes “veterans marching with weapons”? Or, am I just more paranoid than usual?
I have almost always been rejected and always by the defense. You're better at interviewing than I am. If I'm ever called for a gun rights case though, I'm going to make a serious effort to be truthful but not helpful and do so in a manner that will get me on the jury.
A Marine friend once guarded Spiro Agnew’s hotel room door in Hawaii with a 45 and no magazine.
Okay, I accept that. I was in the Navy and they never even once let us near a rifle.
“”I have served on several juries. There is a huge difference between innocent and not guilty.
I have almost always been rejected and always by the defense. You’re better at interviewing than I am. If I’m ever called for a gun rights case though, I’m going to make a serious effort to be truthful but not helpful and do so in a manner that will get me on the jury. “”
The last time I was very careful to answer truthfully yet I didn’t answer something they didn’t ask specifically. Evasive yet technically truthful.
The case involved a guy on probation. The cops did one of their no knock random searches, which apparently is legal if you are on probation, and they found a gun in the house which was occupied by various people. When it came time for the initial vote I was the only one that said not guilty. I reprimanded my fellow idiots and told them if you are going to put a guy in prison at least you could spend some time going over every detail instead of just convicting so you could go to lunch early. They didn’t like me very much after that.
It also convinced me that a lot of people go to prison due to morons on the jury.
Given definition 1.c quoted as free from legal guilt or fault, please justify that response: what is the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'?
Oj was not guilty. However it was never shown that he was innocent. Had he proved he was out of the area he may have been found not guilty AND would have shown his innocence.
If guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt it means you are not guilty, but doesn’t establish that you were innocent.
“”I have served on several juries. There is a huge difference between innocent and not guilty.
Given definition 1.c quoted as free from legal guilt or fault, please justify that response: what is the difference between ‘not guilty’ and ‘innocent’? “”
Innocent...You didn’t do it.
Not guilty...I could not conclusively prove you did it.
You are not using the definition given:
Definition of INNOCENT
- lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
- ignorant ; also : unaware
- lacking or deprived of something
If guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt it means you are not guilty, but doesn’t establish that you were innocent.
Not according to the definition given above, see the underlined portion. If this is incorrect, then by all means tell me why this definition is incorrect/bad; otherwise, you have not only confirmed my usage but yourself given example of it: (OJ was innocent, that is free of legal guilt).
Incorrect, let me reiterate: given the definition Innocent: free from legal guilt or fault, what is the difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'?
They are the same, for if you are "not guilty"* you are free from legal guilt... and if you are "innocent"* then you are also free from legal guilt.
Is this not the case?
* -- Your definition.
In court you will be found guilty or not guilty.
You will not be found innocent.
And what is the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent"?
There is none. It is only by "standard convention" [of terminology] that the court says "guilty" or "not guilty." -- It is much like in programming, where to say 'execute' or 'run' a program; both mean the same thing, though the former is the "standard convention" of the field.
There is no difference, no subtlety-of-meaning, as in mathematics between "non-negative" and "positive" where the difference is the inclusion/exclusion of zero.
And again, the definition of innocent: to be free from legal guilt, means "not guilty": yes or no?
In realistic terms, “innocent” or “not guilty” in our system really means “not proven” under the famous Scottish system used by Arlen Specter.
Which is kind of a shame, since I would kind of prefer a system where the jury had three options: innocent (proven beyond a reasonable doubt he did NOT do it), not guilty (reasonable doubt as to whether he did it = not proven), and guilty (proven beyond a reasonable doubt he DID do it).
But I suspect my idea would create more injustices than it solved.
I do get very tired of those who claim a finding of not guilty in a court of law is equal to the jury finding him innocent of committing the crime. While this may be technically true in the legal meaning of the term, it is certainly not true in our more usual sense of the term.
Not guilty is a million miles from innocent.
By what definition? By what authority do you make this assertion?
I've given you the dictionary-definition, which you have yet to dispute, and how it makes "not guilty" the same thing as "innocent".
Your philosophy is precisely why, legally speaking, our country has such a messed up judiciary -- to rule the Affordable Care Act Constitutional was for the Supreme Court to rewrite that law [as passed] and find that rewriting to be its justification. Likewise the reasoning in Wicard v. Filburn -- that some crop grown and never sold on any market impacted the intra-state market [by the lessening of demand] and thereby impacted the inter-state market, and could therefore be regulated by congress -- is logically void: there was never any commerce to begin with. Gonzales v. Raich was ruled so that someone growing marijuana likewise impacted the interstate commerce despite the fact that any inter-state commerce is illegal, and therefore there is no interstate market to impact. Kelo is another example, the Supreme Court declared that imaginary numbers (a projection), never actualized (the private company it was given to never built there, therefore never generating the projected tax-revenue), fulfilled the legal justification for imminent domain.
Or would you declare that New York's gun ban isn't an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, because some legalistic turd somewhere says it isn't? Hell, that action is treason, as defined by the Constitution, because it deprives the militia of the arms it needs to do its duty.
I find this to be both shocking and disgusting.
If you ever go to court and are declared INNOCENT instead of NOT guilty, please let me know. You will be the first.
I contend that INNOCENT and NOT GUILTY are indeed the same, prove me wrong: give me actual reasoning and definitions, not mere assertions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.