Rob Ford - Maybe saw an escort...does it matter?
- Thread starter therocket
- Start date
And that makes him innocent?He was never confronted by police or charged.
Yes... Whether this upsets you or not. The concept is often times referred to as: Innocent until proven guilty. Please feel free to do a 'google' search and enlighten your mind. Take care. Sincerely, Jon .And that makes him innocent?
Thank you Ms. Foxxxy lady for reminding some of the younger members here exactly what the topic of discussion in this Thread is about. Sincerely, Jon .The original question was about him seeing an escort
Why wasn't he confronted or charged?And that makes him innocent?
By any and all police? Toronto, Peel, York and Durham Police? As Mayor of Toronto he does travel around all GTA regions.
People do drink and drive and police don't pull everyone over. Do you know why? Because the police do professional judgment calls deciding whether there are any chance the drivers would blow over or not.
If the police after using their judgment decide there is a chance Rob Ford was intoxicated "enough" they would have to enforce the law and pull him over and ticket him the same way they did it to that other driving under influence councillor of Toronto.
Admission is also proof of guilt.Yes... Whether this upsets you or not. The concept is often times referred to as: Innocent until proven guilty. Please feel free to do a 'google' search and enlighten your mind. Take care. Sincerely, Jon .
No need for a trial after someone pleads guilty.
Ford has admitted to committing all the crimes listed above so is very much known to be guilty.
You're an idiot.Yes... Whether this upsets you or not. The concept is often times referred to as: Innocent until proven guilty. Please feel free to do a 'google' search and enlighten your mind. Take care. Sincerely, Jon .
There is a big difference between being innocent of a crime, and the crown not having enough hard evidence to produce a likely conviction.
The ONLY reason he is not charged is because there was not enough hard evidence to make a conviction likely.
His confessions to guilt, while quite telling of his lack of judgement, moral character and idiocay, are not on their own enough to make a conviction likely... he could take the stand and recant his confession, blaming it on stress or one of his drunken stupors or depression from not being able to see his winky without a mirror.
Acutus is right here. Ford is still innocent under the letter of the law until he's been charged and convicted.Yes... Whether this upsets you or not. The concept is often times referred to as: Innocent until proven guilty. Please feel free to do a 'google' search and enlighten your mind. Take care. Sincerely, Jon
Also, just because Ford drove after drinking still doesnt mean he was legally drunk. He couldve blown a yellow 24-hour license suspension warning.
And of course I'm not saying getting behind the wheel with even a little alcohol is smart
Please dont ever consider a career in the legal fieldYou're an idiot.
There is a big difference between being innocent of a crime, and the crown not having enough hard evidence to produce a likely conviction.
The ONLY reason he is not charged is because there was not enough hard evidence to make a conviction likely
Any lawyer with half a brain can tell you that there is a BIG difference between 'innocent under the letter of the law' and innocence from the act.Acutus is right here. Ford is still innocent under the letter of the law until he's been charged and convicted.
Also, just because Ford drove after drinking still doesnt mean he was legally drunk. He couldve blown a yellow 24-hour license suspension warning.
And of course I'm not saying getting behind the wheel with even a little alcohol is smart
Please dont ever consider a career in the legal field
I can kill someone, admit it to myself, admit it to my spouse, yet never ever even be questioned by police... does that mean I did not do it?
Maybe asstus can answer this simple yes or no question... he likes those, they are easy, and there is only a 50/50 chance of him being wrong.
Not necessarily before the Courts, where of course all rumors and speculation and conjecture and opinion, etc. are ultimatey decided. Please note that no one, to best of my knowledge, has pled guilty to anything in this matter. Feel free to do an internet search and educate yourself as best you can on this point. Take care. Sincerely, Jon .Admission is also proof of guilt.
No need for a trial after someone pleads guilty.
Ford has admitted to committing all the crimes listed above so is very much known to be guilty.
Last edited:
There is a lot of well thought out discussion by legal minds that the not being charged may as much to do with a largest yet undisclosed investigation involving bigger fish than Ford or that the whole scenario is larger than just Ford being a loud mouth drunk and coke head. It could be the case. Exactly who the bigger fish is anyone's guess. Makes more sense than the TPS/Chief is bent.You're an idiot.
There is a big difference between being innocent of a crime, and the crown not having enough hard evidence to produce a likely conviction.
The ONLY reason he is not charged is because there was not enough hard evidence to make a conviction likely.
His confessions to guilt, while quite telling of his lack of judgement, moral character and idiocay, are not on their own enough to make a conviction likely... he could take the stand and recant his confession, blaming it on stress or one of his drunken stupors or depression from not being able to see his winky without a mirror.
Congratulations. You have made a correct observation. Sincerely, Jon .There is a big difference between being innocent of a crime, and the crown not having enough hard evidence to produce a likely conviction.
Congratulations to your media job well done for the Lieberal Government of Ontario.You're an idiot.
There is a big difference between being innocent of a crime, and the crown not having enough hard evidence to produce a likely conviction.
The ONLY reason he is not charged is because there was not enough hard evidence to make a conviction likely.
His confessions to guilt, while quite telling of his lack of judgement, moral character and idiocay, are not on their own enough to make a conviction likely... he could take the stand and recant his confession, blaming it on stress or one of his drunken stupors or depression from not being able to see his winky without a mirror.
1) Using Rob Ford now to change channel on Lieberal Scandals.
2) Using Rob Ford to change channel on the Pam-Am Games scandal for the next 2 years.
You accidentally quoted line 2 of my post when you meant to quote line 1.Congratulations. You have made a correct observation. Sincerely, Jon .
Oh it's not just a media job... we've been secretly forcing drugs and alcohol on him for decades... no wait, that was him!Congratulations to your media job well done for the Lieberal Government of Ontario.
1) Using Rob Ford now to change channel on Lieberal Scandals.
2) Using Rob Ford to change channel on the Pam-Am Games scandal for the next 2 years.
Okay glad you pointed out my mistake.Oh it's not just a media job... we've been secretly forcing drugs and alcohol on him for decades... no wait, that was him!
Here the correction.
Congratulations to your decade-long media job well done for the Lieberal Government of Ontario.
1) Using Rob Ford now to change channel on Lieberal Scandals.
2) Using Rob Ford to change channel on the Pam-Am Games scandal for the next 2 years.
Ya, 14 years ago we set the poor bastard up in Florida because we knew there would be an Ontario Liberal scandal and Pan-Am game issues.Okay glad you pointed out my mistake.
Here the correction.
Congratulations to your decade-long media job well done for the Lieberal Government of Ontario.
1) Using Rob Ford now to change channel on Lieberal Scandals.
2) Using Rob Ford to change channel on the Pam-Am Games scandal for the next 2 years.
Idiot.
Very good...! You have made another correct observation. Perhaps we should give you a Gold Star for being accurately observant . Sincerely, Jon .Any lawyer with half a brain can tell you that there is a BIG difference between 'innocent under the letter of the law' and innocence from the act.
bumpAny lawyer with half a brain can tell you that there is a BIG difference between 'innocent under the letter of the law' and innocence from the act.
I can kill someone, admit it to myself, admit it to my spouse, yet never ever even be questioned by police... does that mean I did not do it?
Maybe asstus can answer this simple yes or no question... he likes those, they are easy, and there is only a 50/50 chance of him being wrong.
Repeating one's self in a discussion always indicates a weak position. Take care. Sincerely, Jon .bump
