Kentucky fan from Lexington writes an apology to Higgins

[musrat59]

The good news is that whenever he refs our games for the rest of his career he'll be under a microscope.

 

[musrat59]

Hopefully, this sucker is never allowed to ever call another game involving Kentucky.

 

[ram1955]

Locked up? You mean after a trial and a jury verdict, right? Because I hear there is absolutely no evidence of a death threat, except for a guy who we know is a weasel and trying to make himself a victim.

That should be assumed. A person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[CatGotMyTongue]

I'm seriously laughing at anyone who doesn't think our fanbase has enough wing nuts to make death threats.










We do

 

[denhunter]

That should be assumed. A person is innocent until proven guilty.

I go round and round with people that say this all the time. No one has yet shown me where that language exists in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that babies are and Jesus was innocent. But no one else ever.

 

[barryn2000]

I'm seriously laughing at anyone who doesn't think our fanbase has enough wing nuts to make death threats.
We do

They know it....they are just emotionally invested in backing and supporting a bad idea.

 

[3rex]

Heck we've got one that was nuts enough to call his business. Not a major leap from there to " I hope you die."

 

[bookerfan66]

Heck we've got one that was nuts enough to call his business. Not a major leap from there to " I hope you die."

That still wouldn't be a death threat.

 

[barryn2000]

I go round and round with people that say this all the time. No one has yet shown me where that language exists in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that babies are and Jesus was innocent. But no one else ever.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[ram1955]

I go round and round with people that say this all the time. No one has yet shown me where that language exists in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that babies are and Jesus was innocent. But no one else ever.

Then try this...a person is not legally guilty of a crime until proven and convicted by a jury of his peers. We're not discussing spiritual innocence. Bottom line, as per the conversation of this link....if a person made threats to another that would constitute a violation of the law and said person is found guilty in a court of law, then and only then should that person suffer legal consequences.

 

[denhunter]

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Give it up. It doesn't exist. Never has (in this country) except beginning in a Supreme Court decision in 1890 (Coppin)that mentioned it was based on a writing of an obscure Irish legal writer. Due process isn't the same thing as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[denhunter]

Then try this...a person is not legally guilty of a crime until proven and convicted by a jury of his peers. We're not discussing spiritual innocence. Bottom line, as per the conversation of this link....if a person made threats to another that would constitute a violation of the law and said person is found guilty in a court of law, then and only then should that person suffer legal consequences.

There is no concept of 'innocence' really in America. Certainly in France after their revolution, and in modern International Law. There is only guilty or not guilty (OK, a few weird exceptions, but none involving 'innocence'). No statement of 'innocence until proven guilty' in British law either, at least back to the Magna Carta. The words sound nice, so people say them.

 

[CatGotMyTongue]

Will this help?

 

[barryn2000]

Give it up. It doesn't exist. Never has (in this country) except beginning in a Supreme Court decision in 1890 (Coppin)that mentioned it was based on a writing of an obscure Irish legal writer. Due process isn't the same thing as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Following your logic and reasoning....you can't own a Glock 19...those words aren't written in the constitution.

 

[denhunter]

Will this help?

OMG... just when I was finally getting over missing Thailand.

 

[lacocat]

this ain't over

 

[morgousky]

Following your logic and reasoning....you can't own a Glock 19...those words aren't written in the constitution.

Watch your mouth.