Peru suspect says 'not guilty'

Jan 19, 2011 Full story: Ralston Recorder 13

Our agency offers a complete line of Residential Insurance products including: Auto, Home, Umbrella, Life, Health & Long Term Care.

Read more
really

Muscotah, KS

#1 Jan 20, 2011
I bet the cop about to be sentenced for torturing suspects in Chicago could get a confession out of him!
Fben

United States

#2 Jan 20, 2011
I wish this scum was at the bottom of some dirty river.
Obama

Omaha, NE

#3 Jan 20, 2011
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of his peers.

Damn lynch mod mentality.
boo

Seward, NE

#4 Jan 20, 2011
True, Obama, but if it were your kid that was missing, knowing everything they do know aobut his involvement, you'd think the same thing yourself.
Law

Omaha, NE

#5 Jan 20, 2011
Obama wrote:
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of his peers.
Damn lynch mod mentality.
No such thing as "innocent" in a court of law.
Fben

Sacramento, CA

#6 Jan 20, 2011
Obama wrote:
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of his peers.
Damn lynch mod mentality.
Whenever arrested, you are guilty, you need to prove you are innocent by a jury of peers.
Law

Omaha, NE

#7 Jan 20, 2011
Fben wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever arrested, you are guilty, you need to prove you are innocent by a jury of peers.
Actually that's not true. When you are arrested, the governing body that is attempting to convict you (County, States, Federal Government) is compelled to present a case to support their reason(s)for their attempt to convict you for the crime(s) committed. The defense is then allowed to present contrary evidence and/or refute the prosecution's case.
boo

Seward, NE

#8 Jan 21, 2011
Law is right, that is how it is supposed to work. I think in reality, it's really up to how much evidence they have on you to begin with. There are some circumstances in which a person who is caught on tape, like the nut from Tuscon, yeah...he is obviously the one who did it, but it will be up to the two sides to determine whether or not he knew right from wrong (mentally ill, etc).

In this case, the jurors should think innocent until the prosecution provides enough evidence to prove he did do the crime...but the rest of us can draw our own conclusions thanks to the media.

I sometimes think the media shouldn't be allowed to publish names of the victims or the accused not to ruin lives...but that will never happen.
Fben

Sacramento, CA

#9 Jan 21, 2011
boo wrote:
Law is right, that is how it is supposed to work. I think in reality, it's really up to how much evidence they have on you to begin with. There are some circumstances in which a person who is caught on tape, like the nut from Tuscon, yeah...he is obviously the one who did it, but it will be up to the two sides to determine whether or not he knew right from wrong (mentally ill, etc).
In this case, the jurors should think innocent until the prosecution provides enough evidence to prove he did do the crime...but the rest of us can draw our own conclusions thanks to the media.
I sometimes think the media shouldn't be allowed to publish names of the victims or the accused not to ruin lives...but that will never happen.
I agree
EGrimm

Opelika, AL

#10 Jan 21, 2011
Obama wrote:
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of his peers.
Damn lynch mod mentality.
LOL Obviously you have not had any dealings with law enforcement, judges or juries lately!! I have met police officers (I use that term loosely)that have promoted themselves from officer to judge, jury and executioner!! Innocent until proven guilty is long gone it is guilty until you can afford a high priced lawyer to prove your innocence.
Law

La Vista, NE

#11 Jan 22, 2011
boo wrote:
Law is right, that is how it is supposed to work. I think in reality, it's really up to how much evidence they have on you to begin with. There are some circumstances in which a person who is caught on tape, like the nut from Tuscon, yeah...he is obviously the one who did it, but it will be up to the two sides to determine whether or not he knew right from wrong (mentally ill, etc).
In this case, the jurors should think innocent until the prosecution provides enough evidence to prove he did do the crime...but the rest of us can draw our own conclusions thanks to the media.
I sometimes think the media shouldn't be allowed to publish names of the victims or the accused not to ruin lives...but that will never happen.
I agree with most every thing posted.
The jurors however can only think in terms of guilty/not guilty. When the case has been completely presented by both sides and delivered to the jury for deliberation, they are almost always left with 2 ways to find for the defendant...guilty or not guilty. Innocent is almost never a choice.

Unfortunately, you may be in a situation where a jury finds you not guilty of charges against you but in this day of media manipulation, the media from that point on will spin the references to your case to suit their political needs.
.
I've seen situations where when talking about one individual found not guilty, the media said "...and in 1997, Joe Blow was found not guilty of rape charges in Chicago..."

While for another such case the same media source spin it "...and in 1997, Joe Blow was declared innocent of all charges in a Chicago rape charge..."

See how more favorable the 2nd Joe Blow came off ?
I wish they would simply use the terms "convicted' and 'acquitted'.
Fben

United States

#12 Jan 22, 2011
EGrimm wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Obviously you have not had any dealings with law enforcement, judges or juries lately!! I have met police officers (I use that term loosely)that have promoted themselves from officer to judge, jury and executioner!! Innocent until proven guilty is long gone it is guilty until you can afford a high priced lawyer to prove your innocence.
Very true, that's why the rich get off.
Fben

Sacramento, CA

#13 Jan 22, 2011
And if your only witness is cops and they want to take you down, it's your story against cops that have come together to complete their story. Who do you think will win? I know a family where their kid was severly beaten by 6 cops for "resisiting arrest" a term they use way too much. Guess who won? The first thing they do is take your witness away, so the only witness is the cops.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Peru State College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nebraska sued over immigrant license policy (Jun '13) Jun '13 Roady 1
News Blevins takes to take charge at Rural Vista Sch... (May '12) Jun '12 good luck 2
News Peru State College Student Missing (Dec '10) Dec '11 SIR CUNTSALOT 23
News Keadle rape charges dropped (Dec '11) Dec '11 Meh 2
News Red Cross closes 1 of 2 Iowa 24-hour shelters (Jun '11) Jun '11 Moosa 2
News Youth Leaders, Adults Recognized as NADAA Coali... (Nov '10) Dec '10 boo 30
News Democracy 2.0: Nov. 16 report (Dec '09) Dec '09 Lynne 1
More from around the web