jkhuggins

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Actually, in our system of jurisprudence, one is innocent until proven guilty. Since the state never proved Mr. Mocek's guilt, he's innocent. QED.

PhoenixRev

I stand by exactly what I said.

You made Bob out to be the hero in that piece because he was just stating "the facts."

Yet you and Bob gloss over the fact that Phil was acquitted on all four counts, in an hour, without the defense calling a single witness.

Ellie M

Lying by omission:

IslandBased

Actually Ron,

Wikipedia, one of your favorite sources, says: "In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned" So, it isn't Al who is promoting intellectual dishonesty, now is it?

jkhuggins

I wouldn't read too much into it. As others here have noted ... ABQ PD wouldn't have gotten into this at all if ABQ TSA hadn't over-reacted to Phil's use of a video camera. Because TSA has no law enforcement authority, TSA is dependent on local law enforcement to handle their "dirty work". If TSA doesn't make nice with its partners, local law enforcement will just walk away when TSA calls for assistance.

RollerGirl

I just read that ridiculous blog post by BB and all 62 comments. I love that 60 of the comments slam the TSA and BB for posting such garbage. (The other 2 comments, of course, were written by TSORon, so they don't count.)

I find it very encouraging that not one person (other than a TSA employee) supports Bob's position.

RollerGirl

jkhuggins

To be accurate ... GSOLTSO has a posting on there as well, but his posting is decidedly neutral. (Basically, he says "this was between Mocek and ABQ PD, not TSA, which is technically true.)

So, still, 59 against TSA, 2 in favor, one neutral.

N1120A

If I were Phil, I would file a defamation suit against Bob and the TSA. There don't appear to be any qualified immunities here.

sheneh

You imply you believe Phil should have been found guilty. Would you please explain, with reference to the evidence and testimony in the case?

oboshoe

Some people are true believers in the government knows best diety.

TSORon

No, actually I didn’t imply anything. I said outright that there is a difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”, and that everyone here knows the difference. I also said that I do not expect the other posters to admit that they either know or understand the difference, after all it would be like admitting that Phil was guilty and that one of their own was wrong in his actions.

We all know that there are far too many cases in our nations court system where a guilty person has been found innocent by a jury. After all, it is a precept of our system that it is better to find 100 guilty persons innocent than to find one innocent person guilty, and it’s a precept that I happen to agree with. That precept does not change the fact that “not guilty” is in no way the same as “innocent”.

You can do that Rev, and remain wrong. That’s your choice. That Bob omitted that Phil was found not guilty of the charges has absolutely no relevance to my statements. None. And for you to “read into” something I wrote is indeed dishonest.

Please cite your source, a legal one would be nice.

Ellie M

As you state in your first paragraph but contradict in your second paragraph, a jury doesn't find a defendant "innocent." They render a verdict of guilty or not guilty. What you're ignoring is that we are innocent until proven guilty. If a jury finds someone not guilty they have thus not been proven guilty and thus are in the eyes of the law innocent.

Given that in the eyes of the law (regardless of your personal beliefs), Phil is innocent, it is highly irresponsible for government representatives, either you or Bob, to imply that he is actually guilty.

IslandBased

Actually, I cited your favorite source, Ron, Wikipedia. Since you like to use it, you should in turn accept it when it is cited.

If a person is, as our laws mandate, presumed innocent until proven guilty, Ron, and is acquitted (found not guilty by a jury of his peers, as in Phil Mocek's case) he is innocent. Innocent. Not Guilty = Innocent under our legal system. Phil Mosek was found not guilty of all four counts brought against him. He is innocent.
Is that so difficult for you to understand and accept? Your opinion of this case is wrong, Ron, a jury decided that Phil was innocent of the charges, accept it and move on.

PhoenixRev

Your allegation of dishonesty is so incredibly hypocritical considering that you think Bob's post is incredibly honest, despite the fact that he left out the pivotal fact that Phil was acquitted of every single count levied against him.

If no one knew the facts around the case, the take away from reading that post would be that Phil violated the law and TSA policies. Now that is being dishonest because Bob - and you - know full well that a court of law has determined that Phil was not guilty of any of the counts and that was predicated on the fact that the defense did not call a single witness.

Now, as to this imperative from you:

Here's a start: Coffin v. United States (156 US 432).

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in their decision the following:

"The presumption of innocence is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen, by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted, unless he is proven to be guilty."

(Emphasis mine.)

Therefore, if a defendant is not found guilty, he or she is still presumed innocent under the law.

nachtnebel

And here I thought TSORon was turning over a new leaf. Of all the fights to get into, this is not a good one.