Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by FriendofSpurgeon, Nov 15, 2007.
So what do you think?
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
And I'm no great fan of Barry Bonds, by any stretch.
I hate it for Barry. He was my favorite player long before I became a Christian. He is the reason I wear #25 as a high school baseball coach. Galatians 5:16 does say you reap what you sow. Of course the verse is talking about mocking God, but I think it is a life principal as well.
How do you know he's innocent? You know factually he did not lie to the grand jury?
Re: about indictment?
I don't 'know' anything about this potential case. I know Barry Bonds has been indicted. But Barry Bonds is, will, and should stand innocent, as the law presumes that he is, unless convicted in a trial by an impartial jury of his peers, or else he pleads guilty to some or all charges.
These seem clear enough to you?
How about the phrases "innocent, until proven guilty", and "Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt!" (the standard in KY, at least) and the other option to a jury here, the one of "Not guilty!" ? You have heard of them, I presume, as well?
Do you see anything about "trial by the 'media'" or in "the court of public opinion" or "we all know that..." or "I know it, but I just can't prove it!" anywhere in here?
Are any of these especially confusing, somehow?
Your original post didn't say "innocent until proven guilty"...you just stated he was innocent. Obviously, if the grand jury has indicted him, they obviously believe there is evidence he did lie under oath.
The presumption is that of innocence. One 'accused', whether or not he or she is indicted has to prove nothing, in any criminal case. Ergo, Barry Bonds' standing is that of "innocent". And I already said this, above. Here is the exact quote:
Did you 'get it' this time??
The legal presumption of innocence is fundamentally different from actual innocence.
Just because the law presumes innocence prior to trial does not mean that the defendant can be properly called "innocent." Cases in which the defendant dies before trial are not resolved, for obvious reasons. In this case, the defendant has not been "proven guilty," but that does nothing to change actual guilt or innocence. Does anyone really want to say that the VT shooter was "innocent"?
Yes, I will say that Seung-Hui Cho was "innocent". At the same time, I am fully aware that he was the lone shooter, according to all that has been learned, as well. We simply cannot cross that line, in accordance with our Constitution.
However, let me simultaneously add that, had "We, the People..." not incrementally allowed to go unchallenged the encroachment of certain other rights guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically those of the Second Amendment, in the name of Political Correctness, some student, staff, visitor, or faculty member of VA Tech may well have been able to put an end to the insanity, by exercising his or her own 'self-defense', long before any body count reached 33!
P.S. I do think that comparing Barry Bonds to Seung-Hui Cho is an extreme stretch, however.
In my previous post I meant to say Galatians 6:7 says we reap what we sow, not 5:16.