TexasCHLforum.com

RossA wrote:As far as the priests who are accused of abusing children, I would indeed "defend" them to the extent that I would expect the cases against them to be proven individually. Once each case was proven, I would expect that the law impose whatever penalties are appropriate. But then again, I am both legally and morally bound by that silly old Constitution. How convenient that you aren't.
And what about the "victims"? Have you never seen cases where someone claims to be a victim but when the facts come out, there was really no crime to begin with? Someone wanted publicity, or money, or for some other reason accused someone falsely? I guess we should just assume that everyone who makes a claim is a victim and act upon that assumption without a trial and proof. Maybe in your world, but not in mine.
Maybe I'll just get some friends together and start posting that "Abraham is a child molester!" If enough people say so, and claim to be victims, then you must be guilty. Why bother with facts or fairness? That's the way you like to play the game. If it's fair for others, you must think it's fair for you, too.

carlson1 wrote:It is amazing today you don’t have to have any evidence just testimonies. No way to defend yourself when the testimonies are the only evidence. He said she said? No witnesses just one person’s story. I don’t know about Cosby, but I have seen it too many times in the last 10 years.