Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[Shoeless Moe]

yah I guess they may keep it quiet, superstars are usually untouchable and find their way out of trouble, whereas a non superstar would be kicked off the team.

Similar to how Kobe Bryant and Ben Rothlisberger both raped women and it got buried and not talked about. They were too valuable to their teams and their leagues.

So yah you may be right if Lebron was there and witnessed or participated in they may give him the superstar treatment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

yah I guess they may keep it quiet, superstars are usually untouchable and find their way out of trouble, whereas a non superstar would be kicked off the team.

Similar to how Kobe Bryant and Ben Rothlisberger both raped women and it got buried and not talked about. They were too valuable to their teams and their leagues.

So yah you may be right if Lebron was there and witnessed or participated in they may give him the superstar treatment.

What possible reason is there, at this point, to suspect LeBron of anything improper? I would guess countless celebs were at these parties, are they all guilty? Come on.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What possible reason is there, at this point, to suspect LeBron of anything improper? I would guess countless celebs were at these parties, are they all guilty? Come on.

What possible reason? Are you kidding? He's attended numerous Diddy parties. If he witnessed or participated he is guilty. I know you are like the many who can't fathom their "hero's" could do something wrong. And just deny deny deny.

But for now he is innocent so it's really a dead topic until more comes out, but to deny due to his unblemished image. Are you his friend? You know him via the TV and Computer. Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

[G1911]

It appears that James spoke of the parties on Instagram Live videos he streamed, which appears to be the source he attended these parties. “Everybody know there ain’t no party like a Diddy party”.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

What possible reason? Are you kidding? He's attended numerous Diddy parties. If he witnessed or participated he is guilty. I know you are like the many who can't fathom their "hero's" could do something wrong. And just deny deny deny.

But for now he is innocent so it's really a dead topic until more comes out, but to deny due to his unblemished image. Are you his friend? You know him via the TV and Computer. Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

Key word -- IF. And you're right, I can't fathom it because I can't believe he would be THAT stupid. We'll see what comes out.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

So OJ was innocent?

[Balticfox]

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense. But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing. Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ.

Great book and series, I just hope Caro lives long enough to finish it. He'll be 89 at the end of the month, and makes George RR Martin look fast-paced; Martin at least has churned out five ASOIAF books in 33 years. Caro has been working on The Years of Lyndon Johnson for 50 years now, and has written four books, the most recent one coming out 12 years ago.

[irv]

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence....

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

This makes no sense from a moral perspective. If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent? The legal system has huge limitations in terms of its ability to identify much less convict the guilty. Rightly so, because the alternative is much worse, but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.