I agree with the NAACP (frequently)

Again I find myself agreeing with the NAACP. They ask us to reserve our opinion on Michael Vick a football player (although I don't really follow it too much not living in Buffalo anymore).


Michael Vick has been charged with a crime, something that happens to many people daily. However Mr. Vick has not been convicted of the crime with which he is charged. Until such time as he is we owe him the presumption of innocence.


Someone committed the crimes, and our criminal justice system will deal with the suspects. We have to accept our Constitutional protections as we might someday need them ourselves. They apply to all of us not just our friends; more importantly they apply to those charged with terrible crimes.


Michael Vick is not guilty, Lindsey Lohan is not guilty, and Irv Feldblum is not guilty (you probably don't know Irv but he got a parking ticket in Toledo) until such time as he is found guilty or enters a plea.


Indeed I do find dog fighting abhorent. I'd happily give those people a good kick in the gonads when they were down.


However until such time, I'll go along with the position of the NAACP that he is not guilty until he is found guilty.


Reverend Marcellus from the NAACP just said on the news that "Race always matters," when discussing the Vick case. You know I have to agree. If it were Doug Flutie would more white people be giving him the beneift of the doubt. I hope not, but I think so.


I also feel that OJ is not guilty. My opinion is that he probably killed people, but I have to accept the jury's decision. I don't have to like it I just have to live with it.


I never knew who Michael Vick was until the last few days. Oddly I know who that metrosexual Beckham is. I should pay more attention to hockey.

Oh and this is not at all related to libraries so I'll find some tangential link. I have an MLS. There ya go!

Comments

Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty, not not guilty.

He also did it. And should swing for it. F*cker.

There is actually a difference between innocent and not guilty. One can be innocent all their life, babies are born that way. Most people spend their lives that way.

However not guilty is both a rebuttal to a charge as well as a delcaratory finding.
I am innocent of voluntary homocide as I've never purposefully killed anyone yet I have no need to address a particular charge. IF I were to be accused of killing someone I would certainly enter a response to that charge as a plea of not guilty, and at the conclusion of the trial there would also be a finding that I was not guilty of the charge.

Similarly one cannot be guilty of a charge until there has been a judicial finding of such. Michael Vick has not been found guilty, although there is a specific chagre so he is presumed innocent and to rebut the charge not guilty.

At least that is what I remember from school.