Messages

I said I don't remember every freaking word.  I do remember that.  If the guy had been innocent the interview would have been about how he was framed.  The interview was about how he was guilty (to which he did admit.  Sorry I should not have used quotation marks) and how the punishment was affecting his inability to live where he wants to.

Jewell:  According to the FBI and the Atlanta police, he did.

This guy:  According to whom?

According to himself.

Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

Yeah, but he shouldn't complain about what happened to him.  He should never have been the conspicuous fat guy in Atlanta when the bomb went off.

No, he should complain because he maintained his innocence and was in fact innocent.  Subject of the post maintains his guilt and was in fact guilty.

The cops are honest, in your world?  

What color is the sky?

Um, it's black.

And Jewell never said "Hey, I did it! "
The subject of this post did say "Hey, I did it!"

Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Not to the cops, the media, and the fact that he'll never get a security job again.  ever.

In Jewell's case that is correct.  He did get a raw deal.

Are you changing the point again?

No, but it is true that some restraint would have prevented the whole thing.  Thus why he shouldn't complain.  He had the ability to avoid the "inconvenience" he found himself in.  He, unwisely, chose not to.

Then I hope you have the sense to call a lawyer, if you ever get in trouble.

Remember Richard Jewell?  THe first guy they accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

They asked him HOW he would do it, IF it were him doing it.

He told them, and then they said he confessed.

Turns out later on that it was a Xtian screwball by the name of Eric Rudolf.

Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

There's a difference to acknowledging that an action is currently considered illegal by community standards, and admitting guilt.

Either way he should have kept his pants zipped.

TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

But the breaking point moves as you age.

Until she hits 60 and then a "break" is probably a certainty.  Unless you excercise some restraint of course.  

Well, I have to say that with the current legal system being what it is, I can't allow myself the black and white certainty to trust that a person admitting guilt is actually guilty of the precise crime that they admitted to.

Nor that they had all the facts in what their punishment entailed.

Nor that they didn't admit to guilt under threats or coersion.

Hell, I know Law & Order isn't very realistic, but even they represent the system as flawed and easily manipulated.

These are all true, to a point.  I just can't see someone admitting guilt to a cop, a judge, and a national TV broadcast and being innocent.

TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

To be honest, it seems like he started out the thread ranting about abusive and coercive men, most likely brought on by looking after his daughter while watching the news, and then I took his rant as his actual veiws, which seem a bit more reasonable as time goes on.

I have a feeling I'm crossing the line from debate to poking with a sharp stick.

is that bad?

Clean Guinea Pig.  Always a good thing.  

No.  My rant is not about abusive and coercive men.  It started out being about people who are convicted of a crime.  Assuming and admitting guilt in said crime.  And then whining about the punishment.  Pretty simple.  Yes it involved sexual abuse.  I have strong feelings about anyone who would sexually abuse a young girl AGAINST HER WILL.  Yes, they are old school.  Yes those feelings are pretty much "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  But that wasn't the original point.

Further.  You can't commit a crime.  Admit guilt.  And then complain about the punishment.  Well, I suppose you can but the obvious solution is to not commit the crime in the first place.

Obviously if charged he goes to trial.  He defeneds himself to the best of his abilities.  If he still gets convicted he appeals to the fullest extent of the law.  

If however, as in the case cited at the beginning, he admits guilt and wrong doing he deals with the consequences of said wrong-deed.