Alleged meth shooter Ronald Smith
Grand jury gets meth murder; Clark slaying case delayed
The Lamar County grand jury took up the case against Ronald Smith today. Smith is accused of murder in connection with the slaying of his alleged meth dealer Charles Graves Adams.
A jury of ones peers is supposed to be untainted by biased thinking, one should always assume innocent until a prosecuter presents a jury with evidence that shows the party guilty. Until then, according to law, they are still innocent.
And if you're not on the jury, you have no right implying guilt, the evidence is not going to be presented to you, and thus if you do not have the evidence before you, you'll never know exactly what has happened.
Instead of saying you hope they die for what they did, you should say "If found guilty, I hope that they get the maximum penalty that can be legally handed down to them, be this life in prison or lethal injection".
I sure hope you're not selected to be on the jury. A smart defense lawyer COULD get them off scott free if it's found that a jury member had already determined "guilt" before a trail even started. Comments like yours could have them walking a free life, do you not realize this?
Comments posted in a comments section, spoken outloud in public, a defense attorney can use community comments in many ways....don't give them that extra ammunition PLEASE.
By the way my first two sentences were sarcasm towards you. {Just in case you didn’t pick up on it} How dare you tell me what to say? Your rhetoric spews of defense lawyer fodder. Well, here’s some ammo for the defense or poison for potential jurors. I “think” they are guilty as hell. Am I allowed to think this ANON? Last time I checked we were allowed to think freely here in our wonderful USA.
Mock me with all the sarcasm you wish, you don't make the laws thank God, and since you feel it's your duty under "Freedom of speech" to remove "innocent until proven guilty" from your vocabulary, go right ahead.
One can't be selective about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you proudly support it all, or support none at all. Picking and choosing which areas you support are very unpatriotic.
“One can't be selective about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you proudly support it all, or support none at all. Picking and choosing which areas you support are very unpatriotic.”
I respect your comment but I respect this one the most:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One can accuse anyone of anything they like, and when a person is arrested they are "accused" of a crime, but only that person or a jury can convict them, no one else. A person can plead guilty, or a jury can find them guilty.
No one else has this power, not the officers that arrested the person, not the judge overseeing the hearing. Only the person; or the person’s neighbors in the community.
Editors, Reporters and others who work in media say alleged because they understand this, most commoners do not even comprehend one iota of it.