PV speaks out on Phil's case
#16
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
What I did say was:
The difference between a lie and the truth is that one is false and the other is not. Nothing Bob said about the situation with Mr. Mocek was inaccurate, and therefore not a lie. Its time for folks to recognize the difference between what they wish to believe and the facts.
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.
#17
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
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.
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.
#18
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Lying by omission:
One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.
#19
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
TSORon said: 'it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent."
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?
#20
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
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.
#21
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
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
I find it very encouraging that not one person (other than a TSA employee) supports Bob's position.
RollerGirl
#22
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
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.
I find it very encouraging that not one person (other than a TSA employee) supports Bob's position.
So, still, 59 against TSA, 2 in favor, one neutral.
#23
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,839
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.
#24
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: UA PE, FL A+Elite, X-DL Silver, X-AA Gold, HH Diam, Marriott Silv
Posts: 213
#26
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
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”.
Please cite your source, a legal one would be nice.
#27
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
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”.
.
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”.
.
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.
#28
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
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.
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.
#29
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
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:
Please cite your source, a legal one would be nice.
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.
#30
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
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.
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.