Replies

To: ovrtaxt

ya gotta give her the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. And if it did happen, it’s really unthinkable and inexcusable.

104 posted on 12/10/2007 1:36:57 PM PST by RDTF (Remember Pearl Harbor)

To: RDTF

ya gotta give her the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. And if it did happen, it’s really unthinkable and inexcusable.

No, you have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Did the Duke Lacrosse case prove nothing to us?

108 posted on 12/10/2007 1:41:46 PM PST by inkling (exurbanleague.com)

To: RDTF

ya gotta give her the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise

Why? She is going to the media. That reeks of agenda to me. Read the headline: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S.

That's giving the benefit of the doubt to whom?

112 posted on 12/10/2007 1:46:02 PM PST by MaestroLC ("Let him who wants peace prepare for war."--Vegetius, A.D. Fourth Century)

To: RDTF

The burden has always been on the accuser in American jurisprudence. Why should it be different in this case?

152 posted on 12/10/2007 3:27:21 PM PST by Perdogg (Elections have consequences)

To: RDTF

ya gotta give her the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. And if it did happen, it’s really unthinkable and inexcusable.

And do the accused get the benefit of the doubt?

172 posted on 12/10/2007 5:14:44 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794