Guilty as sin! Why bother with a trial?

I asked this question to some co-workers the other day, involving an upcoming murder trial:

If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?

The over-whelming response: GUILTY.

Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.

The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.

So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'

'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.

Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?

Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.

What's really ridiculous about illegal immigration...

Welcome to 2008.

To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.

Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.

I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.

The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!

Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.

Three MORE Cheers For Guns!

Two days before Christmas, Paul Crabtree had some last minute Christmas 'shopping' to do.

His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.

Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.

How did they fare?

It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.

Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.

The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.

What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'

I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.

When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.

Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.

As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.

The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.


And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.


Thanks to his gun.

I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...

Before you sign...

Scenario 1: You're going through 9 pages of paperwork with the bank for the approval of your loan. At the signing, you:
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.

Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.

Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.

Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.

And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.

Home loan. Employee contract.

Important things.

They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.

On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.

The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.

Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?

Me neither.

That strikes me as irresponsible.

Trumping Contracts

Suppose you work for a multi-million dollar company and have a contract that states the terms, conditions, the salary and the salary increases of your employment.

When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.

Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.

It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?

Not so fast.

The Federal Government steps in.

The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.

For the next FIVE YEARS.

How 'bout them apples?

So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.

Drug Testing Students?

The Madison School Board was about to vote on drug testing students recently but the vote was stalled thanks to three parents who voiced their opposition.

So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'

Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.

By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.

The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.

That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'

This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.

Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)

(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)

Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.

Great!

Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.

Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?

I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.

What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.

Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...

Torturing Terrorists & Constitutional Rights

Last Friday night I was listening to a local radio talk show. The discussion was about torturing terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks & terrorist activities.

I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.

Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!

Wow. That's just plain scary.

When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.

Great. Give him a trial and prove it.

That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!

What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!

Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.

When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.

Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.

That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.

Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'

Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.

Not so.

Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.