Viper

Say it ain't so, Joe

Recommended Posts

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

Not to pile on, but I'm just gonna go ahead and pile on. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.phil...rs-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

The only reason he isn't in jail right now is because he has 250K to put up in order to get out of jail. Most would be.

I also get innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence against him is damning. The only reason this is even going to trail in the first place is because the prosecution has refused to offer Sandusky any type of plea deal and him pleading guilty would land him in jail for the rest of his life. Unless multiple people with no way or reason to communicate with each other were all consipiring against Jerry Sandusky, he's guilty. This is not going to be one of those maybe he did and maybe he didn't trials, this is going to be a he did it trial and we are just having this trial to determine how long before he will have the chance to receieve parole if he ever has the chance to receive parole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get innocent until proven guilty...

Exactly... Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a joke he lives near a school too. His bail should be much higher, there is a high presumption of guilt in this matter and the bail should be at least 1 million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandusky's lucky that outraged parents haven't stormed his house to finish the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

I am not, nor have I ever on these boards, defended Sandusky. Respecting a man's civil rights is not the same as defending him against the charges that he will face in a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a joke he lives near a school too. His bail should be much higher, there is a high presumption of guilt in this matter and the bail should be at least 1 million

There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a joke he lives near a school too. His bail should be much higher, there is a high presumption of guilt in this matter and the bail should be at least 1 million

There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case.

When setting bail, you can presume if there is a high percentage of conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Looks at thread title* By now, we know it's impossible for Joe to say it's so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a joke he lives near a school too. His bail should be much higher, there is a high presumption of guilt in this matter and the bail should be at least 1 million

There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case.

When setting bail, you can presume if there is a high percentage of conviction.

Well for a start, the 8th Amendment protects against excessive bail. So either you don't grant bail or you put stringent conditions on it. (Which is what has been done in this case, as I understand it.) As I understand it, actually its not a presumption of guilt, its whether or not the defendant is considered a high risk of either flight, or of posing a danger to the public. Now you could make a case for saying Sanduskey is a danger to the public, but I within the limits of his bail, which remember bans him even from contact with his grand children, I don't see that really coming into play here.

Also remember that any judgement on bail, and refusing it is risky in a trial situation, because it may lead a jury to presume guilt, and if it is judged that is the case, it would not be difficult for the court to rule a miss trial (which is surely not what anyone wants, if the case is such an open and shut case.)

So its not a presumption of guilt, its a weighing up of the risk to the public in setting bail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Looks at thread title* By now, we know it's impossible for Joe to say it's so.

And that username is quite appropriate for the comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Sandusky is no longer wearing PSU gear, favoring instead to ...

ae3598d7ea83426d2ca3f818b957f945.jpg

wear Browns gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The City of Cleveland must be enthralled with his wardrobe choice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a joke he lives near a school too. His bail should be much higher, there is a high presumption of guilt in this matter and the bail should be at least 1 million

There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case.

When setting bail, you can presume if there is a high percentage of conviction.

Well for a start, the 8th Amendment protects against excessive bail. So either you don't grant bail or you put stringent conditions on it. (Which is what has been done in this case, as I understand it.) As I understand it, actually its not a presumption of guilt, its whether or not the defendant is considered a high risk of either flight, or of posing a danger to the public. Now you could make a case for saying Sanduskey is a danger to the public, but I within the limits of his bail, which remember bans him even from contact with his grand children, I don't see that really coming into play here.

Also remember that any judgement on bail, and refusing it is risky in a trial situation, because it may lead a jury to presume guilt, and if it is judged that is the case, it would not be difficult for the court to rule a miss trial (which is surely not what anyone wants, if the case is such an open and shut case.)

So its not a presumption of guilt, its a weighing up of the risk to the public in setting bail.

I thought you were Mr. Constitution, Tank? Saintsfan's right. Hooray for the Brit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Sandusky is no longer wearing PSU gear, favoring instead to ...

ae3598d7ea83426d2ca3f818b957f945.jpg

wear Browns gear.

All he needs is a walker and a blue bathrobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Sandusky is no longer wearing PSU gear, favoring instead to ...

ae3598d7ea83426d2ca3f818b957f945.jpg

wear Browns gear.

Great. Like Browns fans don't have enough problems already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw dammit, another thread gets Clevejacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Sandusky is no longer wearing PSU gear, favoring instead to ...

ae3598d7ea83426d2ca3f818b957f945.jpg

wear Browns gear.

Great. Like Browns fans don't have enough problems already.

Well, at least he wasn't wearing the elf logo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Sandusky is no longer wearing PSU gear, favoring instead to ...

ae3598d7ea83426d2ca3f818b957f945.jpg

wear Browns gear.

All he needs is a walker and a blue bathrobe.

Is funny because is true!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now