How does assessing the overwhelming evidence against the man and determining that he’s guilty as sin deny him of due process? None of us could get on a jury if we wanted to.
Has every opinion you’ve ever formed about a person involved in a criminal matter always come after the jury has reached a verdict? You’ve never looked at evidence and arrived at a conclusion on your own?
I agree with this post. Someone is only innocent until proven guilty in court. The rest of us are free draw whatever conclusion we want. On the other hand, the issue here is whether it might turn out the government could be wrong.
I am always willing to allow for the possibility that the government is wrong. But then I believe in freedom and that the government needs proof to take away the liberty of free citizens. Clearly despite the name “FreeRepublic” many here do not from time to time.
Exactly. The STATE has to presume that Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty, no matter how damning the evidence looks. The rest of us are under no obligation to ignore the obvious.