Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    Good grief.


    Indeed

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Good grief.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    US Criminal Law is: Innocent until proven guilty. He was always innocent under US law. The jury acquittal did not make him innocent, it removed the possibility of him being convicted of those crimes in the future.

    Civil trials have nothing to do with criminal law. And afaik, Civil trials have no "innocent until proven guilty" provision. Lawyers are welcome to correct me, since my profession is bean counting.
    You're correct. My only point is that just because Clemens is found "innocent" by the court system, it doesn't mean he has to be innocent in the court of public opinion too. There should obviously be stricter criteria to send a guy to jail than to vote against him making the HOF.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    "If he didn't lie to Congress about not using substance-enhancing substances, the only possible conclusion one can reach is that when Roger Clemens told the world that he didn't use substance-enhancing substances, he told the truth."

    Not at all.

    A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law. And then a year or two later, he was found "liable" for the deaths in the civil suit. And ordered to pay millions of dollars. How is that possible if he was found "innocent" in the criminal trial?
    US Criminal Law is: Innocent until proven guilty. He was always innocent under US law. The jury acquittal did not make him innocent, it removed the possibility of him being convicted of those crimes in the future.

    Civil trials have nothing to do with criminal law. And afaik, Civil trials have no "innocent until proven guilty" provision. Lawyers are welcome to correct me, since my profession is bean counting.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    "If he didn't lie to Congress about not using substance-enhancing substances, the only possible conclusion one can reach is that when Roger Clemens told the world that he didn't use substance-enhancing substances, he told the truth."

    Not at all.

    A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law. And then a year or two later, he was found "liable" for the deaths in the civil suit. And ordered to pay millions of dollars. How is that possible if he was found "innocent" in the criminal trial?

    Leave a comment:


  • 9RoyHobbsRF
    replied
    too funny ,,,

    Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
    Hope you didn't pull anything with that stretch.

    Leave a comment:


  • metfan13
    replied
    Hope you didn't pull anything with that stretch.

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    started a topic Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

    Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

    The issue isn't whether Clemens used performance-enhancing substances. He is on trial for perjury. He has been tried for allegedly not admitting that he used steroids. What if he really didn't? Clemens stood up for his rights. That has made him a villain to many. Is using steroids and being a villain synonymous?

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/entry....ageous-Actions

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X