Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Remember this XMA twat? Come on, you've seen the sad XMA docu on Discovery. Looking at the link i'm suprised they would allow someone to swing a sword around like that so close to spectators.. talk about an accident waiting to happen. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
This kind of thing makes me sick to my stomach. You join a dojo, club, in fact any extra curricular activity and put your faith and trust in the people in charge. It goes to show how you never can tell about people. Treason to the trust put on a "respected" person because of his martial background is a shocking thing for anyone trying to follow these kind of disciplines, either be a traditional MA or XMA. Even worst when the treason takes form in molesting/abusing minors. Just figure how many people gets dissapointed by martial arts in general and don't wish to try again for the rest of their lives. They're teachers, guides and councelors. This is a huge shame and causes anger at the same time, no matter who is the teacher or what particular art he teaches. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Remember this XMA twat? Come on, you've seen the sad XMA docu on Discovery. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
While I thought his XMA 'traditional EYe-AE-DO' (as he put it) system was a joke, aren't these just allegations and pending charges at this point?
He hasn't actually been convicted. I don't know the details of the case of course (though the videotaping sounds rather damning) but isn't he still technically innocent until proven guilty? Or did I miss something and he was actually found guilty? Obviously I'm not condoning the actions but it does sort of seem like we're jumping to conclusions. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
While I thought his XMA 'traditional EYe-AE-DO' (as he put it) system was a joke, aren't these just allegations and pending charges at this point? He did it. Read it on the innernet. Must be true then. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Obviously I'm not condoning the actions but it does sort of seem like we're jumping to conclusions. Sadly, this is not the first and most surely not the last case of this kind to happen. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
...isn't he still technically innocent until proven guilty? Or did I miss something and he was actually found guilty? This kind of thing... Sorry if this seems a little 'on the defensive' but I wanted to make sure my post was not misunderstood ![]() And yes, you are right ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
. . .but isn't he still technically innocent until proven guilty? To many, whose attention to detail and precision in language is not important, it would seem to be a distinction without a difference. However, if we look at it carefully we see that there is a fundamental difference. The word until implies that it is simply a matter of time, i.e. "he is presumed innocent so let's get all this testimony shit overwith so we can convict him". On the other hand, unless is exclusive. "If the evidence does not prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt we must acquit." Next lesson: Innocent and not guilty are not synonyms. There is no "innocent" verdict. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Just to prove that this forum can be educational let me point out that many people, including some judges, will say "innocent until proven guilty". That is incorrect. The proper maxim is "innocent unless proven guilty". |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Now for the important stuff. If you want to get off jury duty, during voir dire, when asked if you can impartially decide the case say; "Police don't arrest people if they aren't guilty". The judge will smile and they will send you home. I'm not telling anybody to do that, though, you're all responsible for your own actions ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
As I understand it, the phrase "Jury Nullification Of Law" will not only get you sent home, but also any member(s) of a jury pool within earshot. The trial of John Peter Zenger is important in the history of jurisprudence and in the history of the American Revolution. Zenger was accused of seditious libel and was tried. The English law provided that truth was not a defense. His lawyer admitted the facts and in his summation to the jury said: "But to conclude: The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty. And I make no doubt but your upright conduct this day will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow citizens, but every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and by an impartial and uncorrupt verdict have laid a noble foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors, that to which nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power (in these parts of the world at least) by speaking and writing truth." The Court instructed the jury to return with a verdict of "Guilty", The jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty" Over the last couple hundred years we seem to have forgotten that this is how we started. Damn I love this shit. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|