resurrectionsong

August 03, 2004

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Hell No.

Note: Apparently this is mildly offensive language day at ResurrectionSong. Sorry.

Anyway, I sat and read about Mark Hacking's post-murder activities and had some thoughts. Firstly, here's a taste of the article I was reading.

Soon after authorities believe Mark Hacking... killed his wife, he is seen inside a convenience store, where he repeatedly checked his hands, pulled something out of his watch and apparently avoided eye contact with other customers.

Lying, scary, sick, twisted, murdering bastard.

And, somewhere out there is someone saying, "But he hasn't been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty, you know."

If I was sitting on the jury, there might be something to that argument. I'm not sitting on a jury, and his guilt is not even the tiniest bit in doubt in my mind. There is nothing that says that I need to presume the innocence of the man--and, in fact, a good deal that says I should cautiously presume his guilt.

If I had kids, I wouldn't let them have a sleep-over with Michael Jackson, would I? Even though he hasn't been proven guilty of anything, prudence suggests that I would keep my children away from that strange, sad, sick man. That prudence is an assumption of some level of guilt.

If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to date Hacking due to that same sense of prudence.

And OJ did it.

And Ken Lay should go to jail.

None of them may be guilty in the eyes of the law yet, but I wouldn't trust my children, daughters, or cash with any of the above.

Read the Mark Hacking article.

Posted by zombyboy at August 3, 2004 01:45 PM | TrackBack

Comments

A hearty "Amen," Z.

Posted by: Rae at August 3, 2004 01:58 PM

Every time anyone utters the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" when discussing anything except a criminal trial, I want to take the ClueBat to him. I've even heard the phrase used in connection with airport security! As if it were better for 10 terrorists to hijack a plane than for one non-terrorist to be detained and questioned by mistake.

Posted by: Xrlq at August 3, 2004 02:54 PM

Xlrq: "Cluebat"-*giggling*

Posted by: Rae at August 3, 2004 03:37 PM

To quote my pal Dever:

needs to be hit with a "clue-by-four"

Posted by: Jo at August 3, 2004 03:56 PM

(Laughing)That's even better, Jo.

Posted by: Rae at August 3, 2004 05:23 PM

Anybody remember the story, probably last year, some idiot acting like he had a copyright on the phrase "clue-by-four"? He had a business web page and used "clue-by-four" in the advertising copy. Then he found that someone else had used it independently on her blog, and started issuing threats.

Now there was someone who needed to be hit with a clue-by-four.

Posted by: McGehee at August 4, 2004 07:24 AM

And who said blogging isn't taken seriously?

McGehee, I just realized that in all this time, I haven't linked you. Off to link The Court Jester....

Posted by: Rae at August 4, 2004 11:37 AM

Heheheh. "Clue-by-four."

Still cracks me up.

Posted by: zombyboy at August 4, 2004 01:54 PM

Anecdotal evidence may not be used in a court of law but it's obviously used in everyday life. Most people call it "common sense." You nailed my thoughts, completely.

BTW, have any of these twisted, murdering jerks EVER heard of "divorce?" Keerist on a bike.

Oh and one final thought, posted on my pre-Apropos blog (swiped from Usenet):

You are so clueless that if you pulled on a clue skin, doused yourself in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a clue.

Heh.

Posted by: Emma at August 4, 2004 08:18 PM