They need to lock Mr. Sandusky in a cell with the little butt wipes, who where riding the bus the other day. They'd probably all enjoy each others company.

So to follow your logic to it's conclusion, all that are convicted in a court of law, by a jury of their peers are actually guilty. No one has ever been falsely convicted of a crime. To quote your own post: "Do a little research... you'll change your mind real quick."

At this point I am dropping this discussion. I never tried to defend Sandusky's innocence, only tried to point out that almost all that are calling for the most heinous of punishments for him have little or no knowledge of the "actual events", since none of us were there at the time of the assaults. One needs to be very careful of what you accept as fact. If you were to look at the picture of my bike, you may say it is a black bike. And that may be completely true. But it also might be that just the side you are able to see is black, and the hidden side is a completely different color. One must be very careful of what one calls an indisputable fact.

FIREMAN I give you credit for piping up on the subject and I agree with you.

The whole truth will never be known and at times their was DOUBT about the accusers and their statements and motives. Something was rotten in Denmark about Sandusky but its prolly somewhere in between what really happened and what the Media and prosecution said happened.

I have had and worked with some young folks in my life and at more than one time during the trial I had to wonder how I would ever begin to defend myself against an accusation like that if it were ever made and it scared me because its almost impossible in my mind to do.

All and all I think the public should butt out now and we here should go back to playing with our motorcycles.

No one that has commented so far has had one to one contact with the trial or evidence much less the people involved and have not been asked to render a verdict or sit up there with the judge or in the jury box so it falls in to a category of gossip and truthfully I was sad to see the subject tarnish the forum. Again I give you credit FIREMAN for putting some perspective to a mob with torches and pitchforks yelling for justice to be served by inmates committing more crimes in the prisons system. Very Good.

fireman922 wrote:
Quote from definition of "Guilt" (Wikipedia):

"The determination that one has committed that violation is made by an external body (a “court of law”) and is, therefore, as definitive as the record-keeping of the body. So the most basic definition is fundamentally circular: a person is guilty of violating a law, if a court says so."

I'm glad all of you have such blind faith in our judicial system. I hope you have the same faith if you are ever accused of something you didn't do.

Trust the government. They are always right.

Having read your previous comments I can see that this issue is very close to your heart. I'm sorry to read that an injustice was done in regard to your friends that also cast suspicions upon you. However, the citation from Wikipedia is flawed in that it is not a strict definition, but a personal interpretation. And the determination of guilt is not circular, because the court did not write the laws- an external body did. The court is simply the enforcer of such laws. This is a lineal process that involves many people and much time. The Oxford Dictionary has a literal definition of "guilt": "The fact of having committed a specified or implied offence or crime." The Sandusky case (which I didn't follow, either)was seeking guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury determined the testimonies to be factual. Verdict: "guilty." This may or may not be the best system, but its the only one we have. Clouding the process with emotion and suspicion only reduces our reliance upon it.

churchdog wrote:
[quote]fireman922 wrote:
Quote from definition of "Guilt" (Wikipedia):

This may or may not be the best system, but its the only one we have. Clouding the process with emotion and suspicion only reduces our reliance upon it.


And blind faith in government is dangerous !

coalstoves wrote:
[quote]churchdog wrote:
fireman922 wrote:
Quote from definition of "Guilt" (Wikipedia):

This may or may not be the best system, but its the only one we have. Clouding the process with emotion and suspicion only reduces our reliance upon it.


And blind faith in government is dangerous !

Of course it is. Our gov't is by, for and of the people, right? We have little faith in our fellow man becuase we have seen so much injustice. That said, where else can we turn to find any hope of earthly justice, if not the courts that we have established? And where can we hope to find law except from the representatives that we have elected? Flawed as the system is, it still works in many cases, and I daresay that we would all use it in cases where we have been wronged (unless you desire anarchy). My only point here was to clarify the terms. If the terms are mis-defined, then the issue cannot be adequately debated. And, for the record, it's not "faith" if it is based on sight. The nature of faith is to accept a premise without seeing evidence, as in, "I have faith that my brand-new motorcycle will not leave me stranded."

I guess for some I should have specified that the definition of guilty I quoted was when the term is used in conjunction with the justice system. I felt that it was obvious and didn't need to be specified when taken in context of the post. You have proven me wrong.

The saying "blind faith" is a colloquialism and not meant to be taken literally or broken down into singular terms.

I'm sensing a troll in our group.....

so is the other side of your bike black sorry couldnt help myself

smokescreens wrote:
so is the other side of your bike black sorry couldnt help myself

For me, Blind Faith was one of the greatest bands ever, with Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood and Ric Grech.

That said, I have me some Blind Faith, and here's some for all y'all

Blind Faith - Can't Find My Way Home - 1969