Should we conclude mass shooters are innocent if the die before being tried

[JE Corbett]

We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living. In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

It is typical that these people are not taken alive. Either they turn the guns on
themselves or they force the cops to kill them. The most recent example was
the mass shooter in Maine who was found dead from a self inflicted gunshot
wound. The list of such killers is long. Hank mentioned Charles Whitman, Eric
Harris, and Dylan Klebold. We also have the shooters at Virginia Tech, Sandy
Hook, Las Vegas, and Uvalde just to name of few. Are all these people
entitled to the presumption of innocence? Can we not conclude these people
committed atrocities even though none of them stood trial for their crimes?
Should we be required to refer to them as accused killers? It is a ridiculous proposition.
When there is clear evidence that these people committed murder, there is
no reason to use the qualifier "accused". John Wilkes Booth was the assassin
of Abraham Lincoln and Lee Harvey Oswald was just as surely the assassin
of John Kennedy.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.

You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."

SMH

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are
willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused murderers. I would call this progress.

Post by Gil Jesus
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a package to one crime scene that was big
enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of the murder weapons, and were there
fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing, and were their fingerprints at the location
where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of bother murders that could only have been
fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the shootings that could only have been fired by
one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of both murders who identified them as the
shooter?
Then chance are they're guilty.

Post by Gil Jesus
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.

Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be innocent. IOW, present a scenario that would
produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and we can compare that scenario to the one
which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.

Post by Gil Jesus
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."

You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK assassination. OK, how many case do we have in
which a US president was assassinated with a rifle? How many US presidents were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?
How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have
one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of the head.

Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with the JFK assassination.

[David]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are
willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused murderers. I would call this progress.

Post by Gil Jesus
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a package to one crime scene that was big
enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of the murder weapons, and were there
fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing, and were their fingerprints at the location
where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of bother murders that could only have been
fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the shootings that could only have been fired by
one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of both murders who identified them as the
shooter?
Then chance are they're guilty.

Post by Gil Jesus
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.

Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be innocent. IOW, present a scenario that would
produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and we can compare that scenario to the one
which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.

Post by Gil Jesus
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."

You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK assassination. OK, how many case do we have in
which a US president was assassinated with a rifle? How many US presidents were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?
How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have
one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of the head.
Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with the JFK assassination.

yeah, but, what about.... what a live bait turdling. -- carry on..... rotflmfao

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

Oh, so now you are qualifying it. You're willing to accept that if there is sufficient evidence of a dead person's guilt, you are
willing to accept that they are guilty. We don't have to call them accused murderers. I would call this progress.

Post by Gil Jesus
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Were they the owners of two different murder weapons, and did they bring a package to one crime scene that was big
enough to hold one of the murder weapons, and was their palmprint on one of the murder weapons, and were there
fibers on one of the murder weapons that matched the shirt they were wearing, and were their fingerprints at the location
where several witnesses saw a gunman, and were shells found at the scene of bother murders that could only have been
fired by the weapons they owned, and were bullets recovered from one of the shootings that could only have been fired by
one of the weapons they owned, and were there eyewitne Hosses as the scene of both murders who identified them as the
shooter?
Then chance are they're guilty.

Post by Gil Jesus
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.

Explain how under the above circumstances I outlined, Oswald could be innocent.

That’s a piece of cake. ”He was framed!” are Oswald’s get out of jail free card for CTs everywhere.

Post by JE Corbett
IOW, present a scenario that would
produce the body of evidence we have in the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and we can compare that scenario to the one
which the WC gave us and decide which is the more credible scenario.

“All the evidence was planted!” What more do you need to know?

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."

You want us to find crimes that have something in common with the JFK assassination. OK, how many case do we have in
which a US president was assassinated with a rifle?

What a bizarre objection. Do other people shot with a rifle react differently than U.S. Presidents?

Post by JE Corbett
How many US presidents were assassinated while riding in a vehicle?
How many cases do we have in which a US president was assassinated with a gunshot to the back of the head. OK, we have
one to compare it with but only if you accept JFK was also shot in the back of the head.
Perhaps you could tells us about some cases that have things in common with the JFK assassination.

You mean people getting shot with a rifle? The other nonsense is to artificially limit the applicable cases. The laws of physics don’t change because someone is riding in a limo at 11 miles an hour.

So what was the Texas Tower shooter’s Marine shooting score? Did he shoot people from a greater distance than Oswald? Try answering some easy questions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:58:17 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[David]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.
"Yeah, but what about...."
SMH

Corbi has the proverbial *guilty conscious*, needs attention, and shits daily on the living room carpet... El Sicko comes to mind...

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong [to] declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

You said exactly that on 11/17/23 here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

You did not mention any special circumstances on the 17th:
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Post by Gil Jesus
Were the mass murderers killed by police or committed suicide at the scene of the crime ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

That’s not what you said before:
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Nothing about being killed by police or committing suicide.

Post by Gil Jesus
Were they armed at the time they were killed ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Nothing about being armed either:
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Post by Gil Jesus
Were there witnesses who knew them, recognized them and identified them as the shooter ?
Then chances are they're guilty.

Nothing about witnesses either:
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

You said a trial (and presumably a guilty verdict) was a necessity, and minus a trial, then a person can’t be considered historically guilty.

Your argument is nonsense.

What about being considered historically innocent? Do you accept a not guilty verdict is sufficient to render that person historically innocent?

How do you feel about the Clay Shaw verdict, and what are your feelings about the movie, JFK?

Post by Gil Jesus
You love to make generalizations with no regard to the circumstances.
And you love to compare apples to oranges.
You birdbrains always come up with comparisons that have absolutely NOTHING in common with this case.

You made no exceptions initially, declaring a trial a necessity:
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

So all those mass shooters are historically innocent, if they were never brought to trial, right, Gil?

Post by Gil Jesus
"Yeah, but what about...."
SMH

[JE Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong [to] declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

I never said that and I know I never said that because that's not what I think.
It all depends on the circumstances.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ
“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
In another thread, Hank brought up several mass
shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since
we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they
committed mass murder?

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances.

“… history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that. And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.”

Giltardo, took great glee in pointing out something I had said about him about a month earlier and had forgotten. Now he has
denied saying something he had said earlier. In my case I didn't deny having said that. I said I didn't remember having said
that. Now I could make a big deal of Giltardo's forgetfulness and start a whole new thread pointing this out to everybody, but
that would be very, very petty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 04:28:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Giltardo...

When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you. -
Huckster Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 22:12:17 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 04:55:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a
criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they
committed while living.

Can you name that logical fallacy?