Can we lock up scum like him?
This shit is a criminal, like he so hardly tries to appear.
Is the legal system able to lock him up in spite of his very undeserved money?
Or is Mike Tyson the only rapist in Hollywood history ever to get jailed?
You don't think there ought to be an investigation first, and then a trial? You're ready to lock him up because you think he's scum? Based on what evidence?
shareWhere you been man, it's charge and conviction by mere accusation these days.
Well, until it's their turn and then somebody starts moaning about the law, juries and the rest of that nonsense.
OBVIOUSLY I meant AFTER a trial.
Too difficult to understand that, AFTER A FUCKING TRIAL he will probably escape incarceration because of his ill gotten money and not because he is innocent LIKE I WROTE IN THE OP???
I wrote legal system and lock him up. Is a trial not obviously included in that process or do I need to spell out every step of said process?
I don't think you made that clear at all. Your subject line is "can we lock up scum like him?" and you closed by referring to him as a rapist. That certainly makes it seem like you believe he is rapist scum and deserves jail. It appears that the other four people who responded here took away the same meaning as I did, so I think it's clearly your phrasing that caused the confusion.
shareThat certainly makes it seem like you believe he is rapist scum and deserves jail. Clearly it does, I am glad that is established.
Where I live, you get a jail sentence AFTER a trial, not before.
What happens where you live?
And I would not quote the two other posts after this if I were you, they are clearly morons.
So then we're back to you making your mind up before a trial, and before any facts have been laid out.
I live in Texas, USA, where we wait for all the facts to come forth before making a judgment.
What are you talking about?
I said what I think, which BTW is quite reasonable and agreeable if you hear the facts.
Then I siad that it's clear that there should be a trial for his crimes, to give him the sentence he deserves.
Do I need to state the OBVIOUS by writing that "...sentence he deserves if there is enough proof to give him said sentence, after all sides are heard and all facts are investigated"? No shit! A trial should hand out a sentence to a guilty party, not to an innocent one. I would think that the world "trial" automatically implies all that and more, and does NOT imply any of the stuff YOU are inferring about MY position.