Locals charged with child porn

[omisimaw]

And Trip it actually is available for you to see if it becomes evidence in court. Unless of course it is a closed court and there is a ban in place which of course is not the case at this moment.

People who attend trials, or read transcripts of trials, are exposed to evidence all the time....

[kompili]

So you equate this to pictures and videos? and children?

This is the whole scope of what a person needs to have to be charged?

Do you know what it takes to get charged? I will ask again! Hopefully one of these times you will take a look at the law and see that this evidence can be a multitude of things and evidence can be thrown out and dropped....

So whatever it was that prompted the charge is not known. As is the strength of the evidence when put to the test in court.

To be charged, there must be enough evidence against the person being charged, and yes the charges are known. Look it up.

[omisimaw]

This isn't all about the media, people have there own opinions on the matter, if the charges have been laid, the people will make up there own opinions

This whole issue is because of the media release of a persons name and the fact they have been charged. YOUR personal opinion, if in fact that is what it is, has evolved solely from a short media release.

Nothing within your opinion, ie: guilt, pictures, videos, children and on and on.. was mentioned in the media release...

So what is your opinion based on?

[kompili]

This whole issue is because of the media release of a persons name and the fact they have been charged. YOUR personal opinion, if in fact that is what it is, has evolved solely from a short media release.

Nothing within your opinion, ie: guilt, pictures, videos, children and on and on.. was mentioned in the media release...

So what is your opinion based on?

My opinion is based on the charges that have been laid

[omisimaw]

Maybe so but does it give you the right to condemn and label the person guilty?

Is that an opinion? Because if it is what is it based on? And if it is true that these people caught up in this type of charge are automatically guilty, no mater what, then why waste all the money and time of the courts?

Abuse of any kind needs to be stopped..... but legally, impartially, and fairly

At this stage both the accused in this thread and the accused in the other thread are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence....

[omisimaw]

So kompeli anyone charged with anything in your opinion is guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

[kompili]

At this stage both the accused in this thread and the accused in the other thread are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence....

Finally this is something we can agree with. But this doesn't change my opinion

[kompili]

So kompeli anyone charged with anything in your opinion is guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

If they can prove themselves innocent with out the help of being discharged from the charges on a technicality. Isn't that what the courts are for, to find out if they are guilty or innocent. It doesn't really matter what my opinion is

[omisimaw]

That is sad! You feel your opinion trumps the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. AND you feel that accusing the person over and over again on a public board of being guilty (amongst other things) is still that just an opinion?

You do realize that there comes a time when this might be considered not an opinion

You might want to consider

The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride. It protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you would not have a defamation complaint unless the statement was made to another person.

If a person tells someone that you cheat in your business dealings, then you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you.

[omisimaw]

If they can prove themselves innocent with out the help of being discharged from the charges on a technicality. Isn't that what the courts are for, to find out if they are guilty or innocent. It doesn't really matter what my opinion is

No, you have this all backwards, at least according to Canadian law and I realize that for most the courts, the laws and the process can be complicated.

The law presumes you are innocent, even though you are charged with a criminal offence. As you walk into the court, the judge should be thinking, "I presume that this person is innocent."

The Crown, called Crown Counsel (Crown), has to prove that you are guilty. Generally, you don't have to prove anything.

A judge can find you guilty only if the Crown proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the judge has a reasonable doubt about whether you are guilty, you cannot be convicted.

[Swoop]

Maybe so but does it give you the right to condemn and label the person guilty?

Is that an opinion? Because if it is what is it based on? And if it is true that these people caught up in this type of charge are automatically guilty, no mater what, then why waste all the money and time of the courts?

Abuse of any kind needs to be stopped..... but legally, impartially, and fairly

At this stage both the accused in this thread and the accused in the other thread are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence....

...sorry, but in the court of public opinion, things don't work that way - never have - never will...interesting that in a topic not too long ago regarding someone ticketed for unknowingly (their words) trespassing on WFN land due to poor/missing signage(their words) - you were one of, if not the most vocal about the person being guilty, whether he saw signs or not, evidence to the contrary be damned and no need to waste time on a court appearance - he was guilty and should just suck it up and pay the fine - and his name was happily bantered about as well...yet, here you take an about face? - why the double standard?...how often are news stories of people charged with murder/attempted murder published and the names of those are front and center - what in your mind constitutes a reasonable charge where this information is/isn't made public?...should we not be able to know this until after the court case and conviction - until then any alleged criminal, be it pedophile, murderer, rapist etc is allowed to carry on with immunity?...that simply will not sit well with too many people...

[Xia33]

For crying out loud....IMO...in MY OPINION, when the investigative team gathers enough evidence to lay charges in a CHILD PORNOGRAPHY case/s, I would suspect they feel there is enough evidence to get a conviction. If that were the case, then MR "O"' what would you take to believe the evidence in a CHILD PORN case to be?? Pictures of puppies? Movies of kittens? Or maybe like you said before...pictures of kids in a bathtub? Hardly Child PORN!
What the release said, as quoted previously more than once, "it is not believed any local children were involved". I, for one, would like to know what YOU believe that statement means.... No children involved? If there were no children involved, it would hardly be child porn. I, personally and readily, agree with some others on this forum and regardless of opposing "opinion" (notice is only said 1 other opinion) "we" are every bit as entitled to voice "ours".

[dogspoiler]

Great post Swoop, there has been a double standard applied to this thread.

[WeatherWoman]

A judge can find you guilty only if the Crown proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

so examples could be

caught in a sting by the police?
Evidence of child porn?
Evidence of making child porn?
Possessing child porn on your computer?

[kompili]

No, you have this all backwards, at least according to Canadian law and I realize that for most the courts, the laws and the process can be complicated. That doesn't mean, I can't have an opinion

The law presumes you are innocent, even though you are charged with a criminal offence. As you walk into the court, the judge should be thinking, "I presume that this person is innocent." Yes this is so

The Crown, called Crown Counsel (Crown), has to prove that you are guilty. Generally, you don't have to prove anything. Yes this so

A judge can find you guilty only if the Crown proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the judge has a reasonable doubt about whether you are guilty, you cannot be convicted.

Yes this is so, but this doesn't change my opinion, and that Mr. Preston has three charges against him dealing with child porn