R. Kelly ? WTF?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Would I invite someone to sing songs unrelated to child pornography if they were accused of having it? Sure, if I liked their music.

Would you invite someone over to babysit your children if you knew that he was accused, but not yet convicted of child pornography? What if, although not yet convicted, this person had substantial evidence against him indicating his guilt?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[livendive 8]

Quote

It's not going to offend anyone if he is was not persued by the congressional black caucus.

It might offend HIM if he's not guilty. If you were wrongly accused tomorrow of child molestation and immediately shunned by all skydivers would it bother you? We are supposed to treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty. To do otherwise is immoral because we don't have the ability to go back in time to change our treatment of them if they turn out to not be guilty.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

We are supposed to treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty.

From a legal standpoint, yes. The accused should enjoy all rights afforded to the innocent until it is proven in a court of law that they are guilty.

However, see my example above. If you knew that the police had just pulled out a mountain of evidence from your babysitter's house that would likely get her convicted on some sort of child pornography charges, would you continue to employ that babysitter?

Quote

To do otherwise is immoral because we don't have the ability to go back in time to change our treatment of them if they turn out to not be guilty.

To do otherwise is human. To do otherwise is normal. We may not be able to go back and change the way we treated someone, but a reasonable person would understand. Don't you think?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok - so I rephrase as i did in a susequent post. . . . if this guy was your friend, would you let him, knowing that he has been indicted for 14 counts of child pornography, and all the details that go along with it, would you let him influence your children and instill his values, much as he does with his music.

The thing is, he's really being accused of having sex with minors, aka statuatory rape. The fact that they video'd it made it child pornography, but honestly I think everyone here should be able to see a difference. I don't see anything to indicate he has assaulted anyone.

So yes, if he was a friend, I wouldn't be too concerned.

[misskriss 0]

Quote

I don't see anything to indicate he has assaulted anyone.

Hmmm......wasn't the girl 14? If it is true then I think that is definitely assault.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

would you let him influence your children and instill his values, much as he does with his music

Quote

Concentrating on the lyrical content of his music does nothing toward answering the question.

Ok, this is being ridiculous. Maybe his lyrics are about treating people with respect and doing the right thing.

Bill Cosby is an outspoken person about family values and doing the right thing. He's a great person to have speak to young people. He's also been accused of being a notorious womanizer. Who cares. Concentrate on the message.

Barny could be a coke snorting axe murderer for all I know. Doesn't mean his tv show influences children to be like that.

I have no trouble answering your question. If his lyrics don't have anything to do child pornography or other offensive topics, then I have no problem with it.

Why is it so hard for you recognize that an artists performance often times has nothing to do with his real life persona.

Quote

"If this guy was your friend, would you let him, knowing that he has been indicted for 14 counts of child pornography, and all the details that go along with it, would you let him influence your children and instill his values."

No, I wouldn't. But, I don't buy your supposition that his performance would influence my children or push his values.

Like I said, they very well may, but I've never heard them that I know of so I can't jump to that conclusion.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Would you invite someone over to babysit your children if you knew that he was accused, but not yet convicted of child pornography? What if, although not yet convicted, this person had substantial evidence against him indicating his guilt?

Ummmm...who the fuck is inviting this guy over to baby sit anyone? What the hell are you guys talking about? No, I wouldn't invite someone to babysit under those circumstances to be on the safe side. But what the hell does that have to do with having him perform his musical act, which I'm assuming has nothing to do with child pornography?

[Jimbo 0]

Things started drifting right about here.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Also, I find it ludicrous that you're asking why we're having problems answering your hypothetical questions based on supposition and innuendo.

And for the record, I wouldn't let Ludacris perform for my kids. I AM familiar with his music. It's great to bang chicks up against the wall to, but no, I wouldn't let him babysit my neice

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

what part of innocent dont you grasp? if you treat someone accused of a crime in anyway different from someone not accused, you are taking away that status without cause.

Hehe, you sure picked a lousy stand on this one!

Reminds me of your ridiculous stance that Kerry has no compelling reason to authorize disclosure of his service records.

. . =(_8^(1)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Would you let your family be around someone like this?

That is the most revealing question, indeed.
A person may say that they treat people as innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean they believe the person is truly innocent of the crime.

If I know that someone is accused of, and out on bail for, molesting children, I am not going to allow him to be anywhere near my (figurative) children. Period. And I am not abrogating some "innocent until proven guilty" tenet at law, because I am not the judicial establishment. The courts must treat him as innocent until proven guilty. But even they allow for him to be shackled in court appearances... Why would you shackle, say, an accused murderer in court if you must treat him as "innocent"? You cannot ignore the weight of the charge, and of the evidence arrayed against a suspect. We would like to believe that a person does not get hauled before a judge and jury to answer for a serious crime unless there is ample, reasonable cause to think he committed it. I know this is not always the case... but people these days are overdoing the "innocent until proven guilty" thing in much the same way as they overstate the supposed "separation of church and state" that they claim is found in the First Amendment...

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

A very rational post. Probably your most rational post ever. But again, I gotta ask. Who's inviting R. Kelly to babysit again?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

if you start taking any action against an accused criminal, that you would not against anyone else, you are treating them as if they have been tried and convicted.

Is that why they keep murder defendants handcuffed and chained throughout their trials, even when they appear before the jury?

Why would you shackle a defendant who is not yet a convict, if you must treat him like any other free person?

And where in the U.S. Constitution is it stipulated that people will be treated as "innocent until proven guilty"? I see stuff about due process, public and speedy trial, impartial jury... but nothing about presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

Quote

what part of innocent dont you grasp? if you treat someone accused of a crime in anyway different from someone not accused, you are taking away that status without cause.

Are you saying that you think a person has not committed a crime until the very moment a verdict of "guilty" is read aloud in court?

What if you were a woman, raped by a man you knew. You unequivocally were raped by "Gus." Gus goes to court, charged with rape, and let's make it interesting -- attempted murder. He tried to strangle you but got interrupted and fled the scene.

Do you feel that Gus truly IS innocent of the crime, because the jury has just sat down and has not even heard the opening arguments, let alone rendered a verdict based on the evidence and testimony? What of the fact that you actually felt and suffered the rape at Gus's hands, and you know there is no equivocation about that fact?

So now your girlfriends come to you and say, "Ohh, he's guilty. I know you and I know him, and I saw on the news how his semen was found on your panties. I'm never gonna allow him near me again, I'm never gonna hang with him again, out on bail or not."

Do you instruct your friends that no, they're wrong, there is no justification YET, because he has not yet been convicted, to treat Gus as a rapist who should not be trusted?

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

A very rational post. Probably your most rational post ever. But again, I gotta ask. Who's inviting R. Kelly to babysit again?

See my next one. And I've made way more rational posts than that... usually against gun control.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

A very rational post. Probably your most rational post ever. But again, I gotta ask. Who's inviting R. Kelly to babysit again?

See my next one. -

Ahh, there's the irrational Jeffrey we've grown to know and love

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see anything to indicate he has assaulted anyone.

Hmmm......wasn't the girl 14? If it is true then I think that is definitely assault.

Not neccessarily, in Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina the age of consent is 14.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[misskriss 0]

Quote

Not neccessarily, in Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina the age of consent is 14.

As the mother of three daughters aged 15, 12, and 10 I have a hard time believing that a 14 year old has the mental capacity to decide that it is an okay decision to have sex with a man two or three times her age. I don't care what the law is in those states-- a 14 year old is a child..

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Ahh, there's the irrational Jeffrey we've grown to know and love

Might want to reconsider posting things like that...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So I ask you again, say for instance, he was your friend and he normally took care of your kids . . . You find out he has been indicted on 14 counts of child pornagraphy . . . do you still invite him over to influence your family, and promote his values

absolutely. How would you feel if you shunned a friend based on accusations and he was later proven innocent? that would end a friendship for me. I guess your friendship isn’t worth very much.. thanks for the heads up, remind me not to buy you a beer ever. I certainly don’t need friends who would abandon me based soley on accusations.

i dont prejudge without evidence or conviction unlike the court of public opinion you cater too instead i'm honest and uphold the principles that make our country different from a great deal of the rest of the world. I can see they simply aren’t that important to you, but fortunately for you, you still enjoy them.


lets put it in a personal perspective for you, livindive’s example

Quote

If you were wrongly accused tomorrow of child molestation and immediately shunned by all skydivers would it bother you?

no one will jump with you, drink beer with you, later that day the DZO asks you to leave the dropzone and not return because there are children present on a regular basis. All based on an accusation. You’d be on here most rikki tik screaming about legal protections and unsubstantiated accusations..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Not neccessarily, in Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina the age of consent is 14.

As the mother of three daughters aged 15, 12, and 10 I have a hard time believing that a 14 year old has the mental capacity to decide that it is an okay decision to have sex with a man two or three times her age. I don't care what the law is in those states-- a 14 year old is a child..

To a reasonable person, yes. But our laws are in such a shambles that in some places, that's the age where it's legal to have sex with them. What do you want -- we live in a country where an 18-year-old can join the military, learn to fire rifles, TOW-missiles, and mortars, fly helicopter gunships, and F-16s, but is not allowed to legally purchase a handgun until age 21. Everything's all fucked up. EDIT: Oh, and he can do all that, and also can't buy himself a beer.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not going to offend anyone if he is was not persued by the congressional black caucus.

It might offend HIM if he's not guilty. If you were wrongly accused tomorrow of child molestation and immediately shunned by all skydivers would it bother you? We are supposed to treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty.

Where is this written? Honest question, really. WHERE is this established?

And even if it is, it pertains to what the judicial system may or may not do -- not individuals. If you come over to my house and start badmouthing my favorite band, Rush, and I tell you to shut up or you can't stay, I have not violated your first amendment rights. I am not the government. And in likewise manner, if I hold you "guilty" in my mind despite the fact that you have not yet been convicted, tough shit. We all, every day, make personal decisions based on the input information and our mental filters and processors, and often it serves us a hell of a lot better than the legal system does as far as helping us determine who we trust or not. Case in point: the legal system exonerated O.J. Simpson. Does that mean you would trust him, and believe that he's not a murderer? Remember, he was found "not guilty."

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I guess I should post this again, since no one seems to have opted to respond to a direct, open question:

Quote

Quote

if you start taking any action against an accused criminal, that you would not against anyone else, you are treating them as if they have been tried and convicted.

Is that why they keep murder defendants handcuffed and chained throughout their trials, even when they appear before the jury?

Why would you shackle a defendant who is not yet a convict, if you must treat him like any other free person?

And where in the U.S. Constitution is it stipulated that people will be treated as "innocent until proven guilty"? I see stuff about due process, public and speedy trial, impartial jury... but nothing about presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

Read the bold part. Please answer to the best of your knowledge. People KEEP THROWING THIS AROUND. It should therefore be very easy to clarify where this premise exists in U.S. jurisprudence.
Right?

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,989]

>What does this say about that orginization, and it's beliefs and standards?

I recall a popular talk-radio personality who preaches conservative morality and personal responsibility (and who is still quite popular with a certain segment of the population) who is an accused drug abuser. Heck, Strom Thurmond was accused of having sex with a 15 year old black girl many, many years ago, and was still a wildly popular republican senator. In both cases, though, you might have noticed the word "accused." That word matters to some people.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

C'mon, bill, help me out here. You're still on, late at night now, go read my post and answer my question.

Where do people get this idea that we "have to" treat accused people as "innocent until proven guilty"? Does it come from a founding document? A famous federal law? Or is it just some more of that "common sense/conventional wisdom" that tells people it's illegal to drive barefoot? (Which, of course, is untrue.) Or did people embellish something they read in the Constitution, like the way they took the First Amendment and read into it "separation of church and state"?

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>What does this say about that orginization, and it's beliefs and standards?

I recall a popular talk-radio personality who preaches conservative morality and personal responsibility (and who is still quite popular with a certain segment of the population) who is an accused drug abuser. Heck, Strom Thurmond was accused of having sex with a 15 year old black girl many, many years ago, and was still a wildly popular republican senator. In both cases, though, you might have noticed the word "accused." That word matters to some people.

So? Bill Clinton was CONVICTED of being a liar, and he's still the left's darling, and leftist women still cream their panties over him despite him being an unrepentant womanizing scumbag. The word "convicted" matters to some people, too.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"