Freedom of Speech ... Take III

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 6 2003, 12:26 PM


JR, it will in fact be very interesting to see if more information develops - but aren't you accusing me of "leaping to conclusions" based on the story as told by leaping to the conclusion that the whole story is not being told? You take that one step further ... you assume that the security guards and local police wouldn't do this or that, which means you have to assume that the guy did that or this.

Who is leaping further?

thats kinda a "Torone-like" response isn't it PD? i am not making conclusions about anything. simply stating that it seems pretty clear that there is a big part of the story missing.

CNN did not have the burden to verify anything... it seems that you missed that they were simply running a blurb from Reuters.

the fact is that the whole story is not being told. not even all of one side is being told. that means that its not possible to draw a conclusion and assume guilt or innocence of any party.

It is being suggested that it is a freedom of speech issue. i would say that is definately a "conclusion" based on one or more "assumptions"so i would say that yes, you are jumping to conclusions because you dont have adequate information to come to any conclusion. By that, i mean that you can tell me nothing about the situation, his history, witness accounts and detail what happened exactly. a guy is just making a moronic claim that his "give peace a chance" shirt caused "the man" to put him down.

as i said... they cant have a guy arrested for trespassing just because he was there. he has to knowingly be on the premises illegally for it to be trespassing. that means that at some point either:

-he was previously banned from the premises
-someone had asked him to leave and he refused
-the police asked him to leave and he refused

Its very unlikely that the police would arrest someone "just because". i know that some people who live in constant fear the "Ashcroft Police State" its enough for the accused to state his innocence - but a court of law requires a little more.

As sarretah pointed out and as i said, there is clearly more to the story.

as the complaint says... there was an issue of them harrrassing the other shoppers... and he was asked to leave the property and refused