Jump to content
IGNORED

ebola in nyc


ayin jade

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

You do have to cite a specific law. You're talking about sending someone to prison to make an example of them. To send someone to prison they must have broken a law. You can't invoke the justice system and then just make up what the crime and punishment are. 

 

 

 

Reckless endangerment IS against the law and is a prosecutable offense.   If you have reason to believe you are infected with a deadly disease that can be caught by other people, you have a responsibility to protect others from your disease.   This doctor had a very reasonable indication that his symptoms stemmed from Ebola.  He had a duty under the law to not endanger other people and he irresponsibly failed to do so.   He had been in an environment where Ebola was rampant, knew the symptoms, and when he started experiencing those symptoms instead of taking the necessary precautions, he chose to go out and engage in contact with other people including having intimate relations with His girlfriend.  None of that is in dispute.    What he did is against the law and falls under reckless endangerment and given that this is deadly, is criminal.  I am not making up any crimes or laws.  I am stating what is common knowledge about our justice system.

 

In addition, you said to me regarding George Zimmerman that he is innocent until proven guilty under the law.

 

This is not the same thing.  The facts are already known.  This not like the Zimmerman case at all.  None of the facts are in dispute, like they were in the Zimmerman case.  He has already admitted what he has done.  So as is usually the case, you're wrong.   No surprise there.

 

 

The difference being George Zimmerman actually killed someone. Seeing as you are a person of principle, I assume you are going to consistently apply the same principles grounded in the Constitution to this doctor.

 

George Zimmerman's action wasn't criminal.  Zimmerman had no intention to kill Martin.  He and Martin were struggling for his gun. Zimmerman's intent was to frighten Martin and keep his gun from getting into Martin's hands. Zimmerman wasn't on an agenda to kill a black man.  Nor was any reckless endangerment or criminal negligence in play on Zimmerman's part.

 

This is a different context.  This man knew what he was doing and he didn't want to be quarantined.  He took a reckless gamble and now others' lives are in danger because of him.  That is simply criminal and the man should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what he has done.   That is the only correct way to look at this.

 

Innocent until proven guilty means that the person has the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, as it is the judge and jury that decides that, not any one persons opinion.

 

That means when you railed against liberals for accusing George Zimmerman of being guilty, and for jeopardizing his right to a fair trial, you were right about that. Something that I made the mistake of myself, and I readily admit.

 

It also means that if you are doing the exact same thing towards this doctor, by saying they are obviously guilty, that they should be thrown in prison to be made an example of, that what they did was obviously criminal.

 

If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't apply only when you feel like it is appropriate or when it suits your purposes. It applies all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Innocent until proven guilty means that the person has the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, as it is the judge and jury that decides that, not any one persons opinion.

But he isn't innocent.  He has already admitted what he did.   This is not a "who done it" kind of thing.  There is no mystery, here. He admits what he did and what he did could have potentially put other lives in danger.  So there is no presumption of innocence here. 

 

That means when you railed against liberals for accusing George Zimmerman of being guilty, and for jeopardizing his right to a fair trial, you were right about that. Something that I made the mistake of myself, and I readily admit.

 

It also means that if you are doing the exact same thing towards this doctor, by saying they are obviously guilty, that they should be thrown in prison to be made an example of, that what they did was obviously criminal.

 

If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't apply only when you feel like it is appropriate or when it suits your purposes. It applies all the time.

 

Sorry, but it's not the same thing.  You and others presumed guilt on a lack of evidence in the Zimmerman case.  And you are doing the very same thing in the Ferguson, Mo shooting as, well.  You presumed the guilt of the police officer before any evidence had come in.  Evidently you don't learn from your mistakes very well.  That's what's wrong  with being liberal. 

 

Since we have a man who we know is guilty of putting people in danger and he admitted to it (though he tried to lie at first), you comparison is invalid.

 

Presumption of innocence only applies when we don't know who actually committed the crime.  All defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no presumption of innocence in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does it matter anyway? we said he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, BurningEmber. nobody said he wasn't entitled to a FAIR trial, but if anyone else comes down with it as a result of his actions, there should BE a trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

Innocent until proven guilty means that the person has the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, as it is the judge and jury that decides that, not any one persons opinion.

But he isn't innocent.  He has already admitted what he did.   This is not a "who done it" kind of thing.  There is no mystery, here. He admits what he did and what he did could have potentially put other lives in danger.  So there is no presumption of innocence here. 

 

That means when you railed against liberals for accusing George Zimmerman of being guilty, and for jeopardizing his right to a fair trial, you were right about that. Something that I made the mistake of myself, and I readily admit.

 

It also means that if you are doing the exact same thing towards this doctor, by saying they are obviously guilty, that they should be thrown in prison to be made an example of, that what they did was obviously criminal.

 

If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't apply only when you feel like it is appropriate or when it suits your purposes. It applies all the time.

 

Sorry, but it's not the same thing.  You and others presumed guilt on a lack of evidence in the Zimmerman case.  And you are doing the very same thing in the Ferguson, Mo shooting as, well.  You presumed the guilt of the police officer before any evidence had come in.  Evidently you don't learn from your mistakes very well.  That's what's wrong  with being liberal. 

 

Since we have a man who we know is guilty of putting people in danger and he admitted to it (though he tried to lie at first), you comparison is invalid.

 

Presumption of innocence only applies when we don't know who actually committed the crime.  All defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no presumption of innocence in this case.

 

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty means you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Whether you think they are guilty or not, or whether you think it applies in one case or another, does not matter. This stems from Coffin vs United States (which went before the supreme court, which had to clear that up, as in ye olde' days of England people were often presumed guilty, not provided a legal defense, and simply executed.

 

That is why you cannot assume someone is guilty, and then throw them into prison to make an example of them, because then you violate one of the fundamental legal protections that exist in America. Without it, people could simply be assumed guilty of a crime they were thought to have committed and then punished summarily, which is what a dictatorship does, not a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

why does it matter anyway? we said he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, BurningEmber. nobody said he wasn't entitled to a FAIR trial, but if anyone else comes down with it as a result of his actions, there should BE a trial.

That would probably be able to be pursued in civil proceedings, but I don't see existing law that would be able to provide a solid case for criminal proceedings. I've never heard of a case that ever spoke about infecting someone by accident with a deadly non-STD related disease on a personal level. If he took a vial of smallpox out in public and dropped in times square, yeah I'll bet he could be prosecuted criminally.... But I'd have to see the case law for it, and I haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty means you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Whether you think they are guilty or not, or whether you think it applies in one case or another, does not matter. This stems from Coffin vs United States (which went before the supreme court, which had to clear that up, as in ye olde' days of England people were often presumed guilty, not provided a legal defense, and simply executed.

 

But when you have someone who admits what they did, you don't have a presumption of innocence.   If someone is accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until they are tried and evidence is put forth and a jury decides if the evidence meets the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

But that is not what we have here.  The doctor admits to going out bowling and eating and jogging and riding three subway rails.  There is nothing to presume here.  He admits what he did.

 

What remains to be seen is who if any that he infected.  But he, by his own admission of guilt, removes any presumption of innocence.  Really this is not hard to understand, BE. 

 

 

That is why you cannot assume someone is guilty, and then throw them into prison to make an example of them, because then you violate one of the fundamental legal protections that exist in America.

Without it, people could simply be assumed guilty of a crime they were thought to have committed and then punished summarily, which is what a dictatorship does, not a democracy.

 

But I am not assuming anything.  He admits what he did.  So your entire argument really has no credibility.    He IS guilty by his own testimony.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty means you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Whether you think they are guilty or not, or whether you think it applies in one case or another, does not matter. This stems from Coffin vs United States (which went before the supreme court, which had to clear that up, as in ye olde' days of England people were often presumed guilty, not provided a legal defense, and simply executed.

 

But when you have someone who admits what they did, you don't have a presumption of innocence.   If someone is accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until they are tried and evidence is put forth and a jury decides if the evidence meets the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

But that is not what we have here.  The doctor admits to going out bowling and eating and jogging and riding three subway rails.  There is nothing to presume here.  He admits what he did.

 

What remains to be seen is who if any that he infected.  But he, by his own admission of guilt, removes any presumption of innocence.  Really this is not hard to understand, BE. 

 

 

That is why you cannot assume someone is guilty, and then throw them into prison to make an example of them, because then you violate one of the fundamental legal protections that exist in America.

Without it, people could simply be assumed guilty of a crime they were thought to have committed and then punished summarily, which is what a dictatorship does, not a democracy.

 

But I am not assuming anything.  He admits what he did.  So your entire argument really has no credibility.    He IS guilty by his own testimony.

 

 

Cite case law that proves what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

why does it matter anyway? we said he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, BurningEmber. nobody said he wasn't entitled to a FAIR trial, but if anyone else comes down with it as a result of his actions, there should BE a trial.

That would probably be able to be pursued in civil proceedings, but I don't see existing law that would be able to provide a solid case for criminal proceedings. I've never heard of a case that ever spoke about infecting someone by accident with a deadly non-STD related disease on a personal level. If he took a vial of smallpox out in public and dropped in times square, yeah I'll bet he could be prosecuted criminally.... But I'd have to see the case law for it, and I haven't.

 

The problem is that He was ill and knew he was ill and he knew that he had been in a country where Ebola was rampant.  He was familiar with the symptoms and knew that is symptoms could have been Ebola, which they were.  He recklessly went out  in public and potentially infected other people.  

 

Its' no different than if you shot someone with a gun you THOUGHT wasn't loaded.  You still have the responsibility of knowing if it is or is not loaded.  The doctor was in a position that he should have known he was contagious and self-quarantined the minute he started feeling bad, even without a fever. 

 

So he can be held responsible, criminally, as well as in civil court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty means you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Whether you think they are guilty or not, or whether you think it applies in one case or another, does not matter. This stems from Coffin vs United States (which went before the supreme court, which had to clear that up, as in ye olde' days of England people were often presumed guilty, not provided a legal defense, and simply executed.

 

But when you have someone who admits what they did, you don't have a presumption of innocence.   If someone is accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until they are tried and evidence is put forth and a jury decides if the evidence meets the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

But that is not what we have here.  The doctor admits to going out bowling and eating and jogging and riding three subway rails.  There is nothing to presume here.  He admits what he did.

 

What remains to be seen is who if any that he infected.  But he, by his own admission of guilt, removes any presumption of innocence.  Really this is not hard to understand, BE. 

 

 

That is why you cannot assume someone is guilty, and then throw them into prison to make an example of them, because then you violate one of the fundamental legal protections that exist in America.

Without it, people could simply be assumed guilty of a crime they were thought to have committed and then punished summarily, which is what a dictatorship does, not a democracy.

 

But I am not assuming anything.  He admits what he did.  So your entire argument really has no credibility.    He IS guilty by his own testimony.

 

 

Cite case law that proves what you say.

 

I don't need a case law for that.   When someone is caught in a crime and they confess to the crime we don't EVER go through a trial  to determine innocence or guilt.  Why would you???   If he confesses the only trial you have is the sentencing phase.   We only try someone under a presumption of innocence when they plead innocent. 

 

Honestly, BE  you don't know what you are talking about and you  know nothing about American jurisprudence, evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,188
  • Topics Per Day:  0.85
  • Content Count:  43,885
  • Content Per Day:  6.06
  • Reputation:   11,342
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

why does it matter anyway? we said he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, BurningEmber. nobody said he wasn't entitled to a FAIR trial, but if anyone else comes down with it as a result of his actions, there should BE a trial.

That would probably be able to be pursued in civil proceedings, but I don't see existing law that would be able to provide a solid case for criminal proceedings. I've never heard of a case that ever spoke about infecting someone by accident with a deadly non-STD related disease on a personal level. If he took a vial of smallpox out in public and dropped in times square, yeah I'll bet he could be prosecuted criminally.... But I'd have to see the case law for it, and I haven't.

 

 

I found several articles from this summer alone about a man who had an arrest warrant out on him for tuberculosis, saying that he presented a clear and present danger to the public. His case is not the only case I know of. There have been many others.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-man-tuberculosis-arrested-20140729-story.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704677/Police-seek-man-refused-tuberculosis-treatment.html

 

http://www.hngn.com/articles/37462/20140729/california-homeless-man-infected-with-tb-is-found-arrested-according-to-attorney.htm

 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2014/07/25/hunt-is-on-for-man-in-california-who-refused-tuberculosis-treatment/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...