Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
Why?
Why assume the accuser is guilty of lying and he/shehas to prove they aren't? Why not assume the accused is guilty of assault or whatever and they have to prove they aren't?
|
Lets suppose:
I have just paid your neighbor to accuse you of attempting to sexually assault them. YOU must prove your innocence. That puts time and expense on your shoulders to defend yourself of a bogus claim. In the meantime, since you are
assumed guilty until proven innocent, you have been fired, your wife has left you, you cannot see your children or grandchildren (pending on your age), no one will come near you, and, worst of all, you have to prove a negative (which is virtually impossible). I will now propose that everyone here should refuse to discuss anything with you since you are a sexual predator until proven otherwise. Welcome to the Hell you propose.
__________________
--------------------------------------
Joe
See Porsche run. Run, Porsche, Run:
`87 911 Carrera