[modi123_1]

AdamSpeight2008, on 06 July 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

How is <missing words> retarded. Until convicted guilty of an offence, you're your still innocent.

Just say'n..

This post has been edited by modi123_1: 06 July 2010 - 02:19 PM

[nooblet]

LOL maybe if it was one or two offense but 154? There's no innocent left in that. Not to mention the article did mention he did steal from the store?

[AdamSpeight2008]

I think you need to learn the difference between being arrested and being convicted.

If you are arrested for an offence but never convicted, you are innocent of the alleged offence.

[GWatt]

AdamSpeight2008, on 06 July 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

I think you need to learn the difference between being arrested and being convicted.

If you are arrested for an offence but never convicted, you are innocent not found guilty of the alleged offence.

There is a distinction between the two.

[nooblet]

AdamSpeight2008, on 06 July 2010 - 05:29 PM, said:

I think you need to learn the difference between being arrested and being convicted.

If you are arrested for an offence but never convicted, you are innocent of the alleged offence.

I think you need to learn the difference between what I'm saying and what you're assuming I'm saying. My point was it doesn't matter if he's proven guilty or not guilty. Just getting yourself into a situation where you're arrested that many time is dumb enough. Do you seriously think a fucking judgement is needed to determine if the guy is retarded after getting arrested for the 154th time regardless of whether or not he's found guilty yet or not?! Let's be serious here, that's dumb no matter how you look at it.

This post has been edited by nooblet: 06 July 2010 - 07:09 PM

[modi123_1]

nooblet, on 06 July 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

LOL maybe if it was one or two offense but 154? There's no innocent left in that. Not to mention the article did mention he did steal from the store?

Another article indicated he stole some beer, and was found drinking in on a rock with some other guy down the street.

http://www.wmur.com/...427/detail.html

Quote

Baldwin now faces a felony theft charge in Kittery, where police said he stole two 18-packs and a 12-pack of beer from a convenience store.

Police said Baldwin and another man were sitting on a rock across the street from the store drinking the beer when they were spotted by a passing cruiser.

nooblet, on 06 July 2010 - 08:09 PM, said:

AdamSpeight2008, on 06 July 2010 - 05:29 PM, said:

I think you need to learn the difference between being arrested and being convicted.

If you are arrested for an offence but never convicted, you are innocent of the alleged offence.

I think you need to learn the difference between what I'm saying and what you're assuming I'm saying. My point was it doesn't matter if he's proven guilty or not guilty. Just getting yourself into a situation where you're arrested that many time is dumb enough. Do you seriously think a fucking judgement is needed to determine if the guy is retarded after getting arrested for the 154th time regardless of whether or not he's found guilty yet or not?! Let's be serious here, that's dumb no matter how you look at it.

No one is refuting the guy isn't the brightest bulb in the box. That's a fairly conceded point. The point of contention is your statement the guy should be put to death, or at least found guilty sans a trial. Death is not a punishment that fits the crime, and everyone is guaranteed their day in court. As it was said - he is innocent until proven guilty; unless this is now China or some other Axis of Evil country.

[nooblet]

modi123_1, on 07 July 2010 - 06:34 AM, said:

No one is refuting the guy isn't the brightest bulb in the box. That's a fairly conceded point. The point of contention is your statement the guy should be put to death, or at least found guilty sans a trial. Death is not a punishment that fits the crime, and everyone is guaranteed their day in court. As it was said - he is innocent until proven guilty; unless this is now China or some other Axis of Evil country.

Okay fair enough. But I think it's proven enough times that he's found guilty for a bunch of shit. Now I agree none of this crap is really a serious offense but at some point, serious or not, you realize more time and money is wasted on shit like this than not. At the very least just keep the guy locked up for life or something. It's pointless to let him go only for him to be arrested again and doing stupid shit over and over.

[AdamSpeight2008]

Wait a second.
You want to lock people up to protect themselves against their own stupidity?
or
You want to lock people up to protect ourselves (the people) against their own (the accused) stupidity?

So who decides what is stupid?

[modi123_1]

nooblet, on 07 July 2010 - 03:02 PM, said:

modi123_1, on 07 July 2010 - 06:34 AM, said:

No one is refuting the guy isn't the brightest bulb in the box. That's a fairly conceded point. The point of contention is your statement the guy should be put to death, or at least found guilty sans a trial. Death is not a punishment that fits the crime, and everyone is guaranteed their day in court. As it was said - he is innocent until proven guilty; unless this is now China or some other Axis of Evil country.

Okay fair enough. But I think it's proven enough times that he's found guilty for a bunch of shit. Now I agree none of this crap is really a serious offense but at some point, serious or not, you realize more time and money is wasted on shit like this than not. At the very least just keep the guy locked up for life or something. It's pointless to let him go only for him to be arrested again and doing stupid shit over and over.

Sure.. he's been found guilty 153 times of other minor crap. That's true, but the resources are not wasted. That is what they are there for - to uphold justice and the theory of a fair trial. The resources wouldn't be viewed as wasted if 153 people committed one crime.

So what's the magical cut off point for a drag to society? I am sure M.A.D.D. would say anyone with one DUI and gets caught for another shouldn't be driving ever again... that would be a waste of resources to allow them to do continue driving; they proved they cannot be trusted. How about tagging? Damn kids you were caught three times now and prosecuted any more is just waste of time and resources - throw away the key!

If you start making judicial "short cuts" here where does it end? When every special interest group, uppity parent with a chip on their shoulder, or what not gets their say? What's the term I am looking for? Slippery something-or-another?

[PsychoCoder]

modi123_1 I disagree, the guy has just been convicted for the 154th time, 154, at some point it's got to be too far. It is a complete waste of funds when a guy is arrested, tried & convicted over and over and over and over (150 more) times. At some point the decision has got to be made that this man has zero intention of living as a normal, productive member of society.

Don't put him to death, that's a bit harsh, but at some point the line has got to be drawn here

[nooblet]

I also disagree. People make mistakes. You accept that. A few offenses for shit is different than one guy offending repeatedly. I wouldn't say 154 people who each had one offense is equal to one guy doing 154 offenses. It's not that black and white.

EDIT: This is scary, i'm actually in agreement with PC O.O

This post has been edited by nooblet: 07 July 2010 - 02:23 PM

[PsychoCoder]

Hey now nooblet I'm not that much of an ogre