You were saying moron? wrote:
Inconvenient Truth wrote:I think you just outed yourself as the moron. Rossi was never officially "anything", least of which, innocent. The ludicrous statement by the LVHN Committee never said he was innocent of anything. What they said was that there was no conclusive evidence that his time was inaccurate. That is not the same as innocent. In fact, even in a court of law, a finding of "not guilty" is not equivalent to "innocent." I don't want to get to detailed about this because as the moron you are, I am quite positive it will go right over your head.
"The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don't have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. Accordingly, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Then why do you need probable cause to bring charges and evidence in the first place?
Probable cause means it is more likely than not that you did it.
So in our criminal justice system, it is more like you are presumed guilty more than not, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, what he did was not really a crime. It is more like a civil fraud claim, which can be decided with a preponderance of the evidence . . . it is more likely than not that you are liable.
So Mike is a convicted turd fcker who puts his own picture on a shirt and makes his kids wear them too . . . what a shitty dad. I hope his kids aren't all screwed up and frauds like him.