Mike Rossi hits "rock bottom", vows to "become a better person" after being arrested for "simple assault" of woman

5miler wrote:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2008/M4/C00431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html

No surprise wife beater Mike Rossi is a long time donor and good friend of the Clintons. They don't care about women's rights. Hillary defended multiple abusers and rapists as a lawyer, often laughing at their victims. And Bill, well he is a serial rapist himself.

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

Actually, one is not innocent until proven guilty, but instead there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is a difference and its more than semantics. So when there is video of someone committing a crime, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and it gets reported that Mr. X allegedly did xyz. If he is found not guilty by some means or if the case was thrown out because of a technicality, he is not innocent.

"Factual guilt" versus "legal innocence". Does anyone think that because OJ was found not guilty that he was innocent?

No. Legally one is innocent until proven guilty. That's what the presumption means. There really isn't a difference, semantics or otherwise, in a legal sense you are innocent until proven guilty. And, that proof needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The finding of guilty or not guilty does not mean someone actually did or did not commit the offence, it's simply the legal determination on the matter, much like their legal innocence. Don't get yourself worked up over this.

Yes, some people still think OJ is innocent. Some people also think the world is flat.

The fact that you felt the need to repeat what was already said speaks to you getting worked up, not me. I am fairly confident, in fact, beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, the difference between not guilty and innocent. The standards for each are different. You are presumed innocent, until proven guilty.

In fact, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

Just a quick question since we are arguing guilt and innocence. If there is no trial but a person who was assailted refuses to testify at a hearing and the case is dropped was that person ever assaulred?

At least he'll never be Kim Duclos.

Dunno, but we know Mike was, all in a good cause of course, because we've got the photographic evidence.

Many is the time I would have liked to have done the same thing and wiped that smarmy, smirking, shit eating grin off his face.

10/10 to the hero who did it and added to the public shame and humiliation off Rossi, I know off many who concur with this sentiment.

Just sad for Cindy and the kids that's all.

Quick kestion wrote:

Just a quick question since we are arguing guilt and innocence. If there is no trial but a person who was assailted refuses to testify at a hearing and the case is dropped was that person ever assaulred?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I take it Mike has not:

1. Admitted to his cheating.

2. Apologized to those he threatened with harm or death.

3. Asked for forgiveness for the one he punched.

4. Done anything other than deceive or cover up.

Do not think for one skinny girl second he has changed, he's a bigger turd than ever.

Quick kestion wrote:

Just a quick question since we are arguing guilt and innocence. If there is no trial but a person who was assailted refuses to testify at a hearing and the case is dropped was that person ever assaulred?

No.

"It is important that the prosecutor continue to remind perpetrators, victim witness advocates/personnel, and other professionals who support the criminal justice process, that it is the state that prosecutes crimes," it said. "At no time does the decision to prosecute rest with the victim. The victim cannot 'press charges' against the perpetrator."

Puncher of Women, Mike Rossi wrote:

Quick kestion wrote:

Just a quick question since we are arguing guilt and innocence. If there is no trial but a person who was assailted refuses to testify at a hearing and the case is dropped was that person ever assaulred?

No.

"It is important that the prosecutor continue to remind perpetrators, victim witness advocates/personnel, and other professionals who support the criminal justice process, that it is the state that prosecutes crimes," it said. "At no time does the decision to prosecute rest with the victim. The victim cannot 'press charges' against the perpetrator."

Sorry, I misunderstood that question. The answer is yes, but that person does not have to testify for the case to be prosecuted. Cindy is fully vested in Mike - no matter what he she is complicit in his actions.

Coached Fitness Blogger wrote:

At least he'll never be Kim Duclos.

Colorado chiming in? Nice!

Since Mike is erasing, deleting, and purging his illustrious past, we want to preserve as much as possible.

Here is a copy of the Wikipedia page he has whitewashed. This was saved knowing that he had not changed and would attempt to engage in an editing war as he has done in the past. This can be verified.

https://i.imgur.com/qBYawic.jpg

Note that Philadelphia Magazine articles support several points of this page. The ADA should take note of Mike revising history, that does not change the nefarious activities he has committed simply because he is manipulating internet postings.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/07/08/mike-rossi-court/

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/08/21/mike-rossi-arrested-punching-woman/

Lydia Romero wrote:

Dunno, but we know Mike was, all in a good cause of course, because we've got the photographic evidence.

Many is the time I would have liked to have done the same thing and wiped that smarmy, smirking, shit eating grin off his face.

10/10 to the hero who did it and added to the public shame and humiliation off Rossi, I know off many who concur with this sentiment.

Just sad for Cindy and the kids that's all.

I am sad for the kids. I don't know why she lacks all self-esteem, but not protecting her children from Mike's megalomaniac activities including punching their mother cannot be defended.

It cannot end well. Mike has NOT CHANGED and is making no effort except to save his own bacon.

Observer of Things wrote:

Lydia Romero wrote:

Dunno, but we know Mike was, all in a good cause of course, because we've got the photographic evidence.

Many is the time I would have liked to have done the same thing and wiped that smarmy, smirking, shit eating grin off his face.

10/10 to the hero who did it and added to the public shame and humiliation off Rossi, I know off many who concur with this sentiment.

Just sad for Cindy and the kids that's all.

I am sad for the kids. I don't know why she lacks all self-esteem, but not protecting her children from Mike's megalomaniac activities including punching their mother cannot be defended.

It cannot end well. Mike has NOT CHANGED and is making no effort except to save his own bacon.

It is easy to explain why she lacks self esteem, Mike Rossi. The puzzling questions why she lacks the ability to recognize what the short and long term affect will be on her children, which should be her primary concern.

bloviator wrote:

It is easy to explain why she lacks self esteem, Mike Rossi. The puzzling questions why she lacks the ability to recognize what the short and long term affect will be on her children, which should be her primary concern.

Aye, but she said "yes." There seems to be ZERO concern for the kids. It's all about the narcissist loser Mike Rossi.

#KenWasRight

Why didn't Mike invite me to the party? Do I look like a babysitter? Who are these women anyway?

https://imgur.com/a/FczrH#FOggmRz

https://imgur.com/a/WgVmC#FGzp0qU

https://i.imgur.com/Xv7aRu1l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tbnrlrQl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/k38douml.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/sMPGmTul.jpg

Clueless Cindy wrote:

Why didn't Mike invite me to the party? Do I look like a babysitter? Who are these women anyway?

https://imgur.com/a/FczrH#FOggmRzhttps://imgur.com/a/WgVmC#FGzp0qUhttps://i.imgur.com/Xv7aRu1l.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/tbnrlrQl.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/k38douml.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/sMPGmTul.jpg

Most are on the larger size, gotta admit, he is consistent in his women, lies, cheating, profiles, language, crappy and ill fitting clothes...

Clueless Cindy wrote:

Who are these women anyway?

Women who were photo bombed by a creep called Mike Rossi, just as he did to Hillary.