Lindberg
Final Approach
No, you just have to commit a crime. And then if you flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution, you may be a fugitive to boot.
@DB Cooper: You can come out now ...
- Thread starter Pilawt
- Start date
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Lindberg
Final Approach
That's correct. You are guilty as a matter of fact when you commit a crime (that's inherent in the phrase "commit a crime"). You are found legally guilty by a court. For example, the vast majority of Americans believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, even though he was acquitted at trial. This presents no contradiction.
azpilot
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 821
- Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
But in the eyes of the law you are innocent until proven guilty. So the government does recognize you as a criminal until you have been convicted.
Anyway, the point is moot. Well, it is as long as wikiepdia is accurate:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statute of limitations[edit]
In 1976 discussion arose over impending expiration of the statute of limitations on the hijacking. Most published legal analysis agreed that it would make little difference,[68] as interpretation of the statute varies considerably from case to case and court to court, and a prosecutor could argue that Cooper had forfeited immunity on any of several valid technical grounds.[69][70] The question was rendered moot in November when a Portland grand jury returned an indictment in absentia against "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper" for air piracy and violation of the Hobbs Act.[71] The indictment formally initiated prosecution that can be continued, should the hijacker be apprehended, at any time in the future.[69]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once he was indicted, this formally initiated his prosecution, which apparently allows the prosecutors to come back later and charge him.
azpilot
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 821
- Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
two points...
1) That pictures is awesome
2) I served on a grand jury a few years back. It was one day a week for four months. We would hear up to 30 criminal counts per day. We hear it all: Robbery, murder, child molestation, theft, assault, domestic violence, child porn. We heard every version of felony you could possibly imagine in the time I served. One of the things that I learned is that guilty is not the same thing as GUILTY. Someone may have 'done it', but there would be serious discussion during jury deliberations regarding which statute, or which section of the statute was actually violated. That decision regarding which section of the statute was violated could mean the difference between 5 or 10 years in prison. So effectively, 'just because you 'did it', doesn't mean you're guilty'.
azpilot
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 821
- Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
You have not been determined to have committed a crime until you are found guilty of committing a crime. Until the point that your guilt is determined in court, you are alleged to have committed a crime. If I get into a fight and I punch someone, did I commit assault? Do the self defense statutes apply? The police might arrest me and charge me, but I am not guilty until I am convicted in court. Everyone in the criminal justice system is innocent until proven guilty.
Like it or not, OJ was and is not guilty of murdering his ex wife. Whether or not he actually did it is irrelevant at this point. He was found not guilty in a trial; so he is not guilty.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
On the other hand, the jury in the civil case answered "yes" to a number of questions, including, "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?" A money judgment was issued against him.
azpilot
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 821
- Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
That's a fair point. Personally, I believe OJ did it. But in the eyes of the law, he was found criminally not guilty.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Lindberg
Final Approach
No, that's wrong. You're guilty when you commit the crime. Whether a court ever actually determines that you are criminally liable is entirely irrelevant to whether or not you are actually guilty. There are many, many, many, guilty men walking free. Some have never been tried (or even accused), some have been tried and acquitted. There are even some of them who were in fact found guilty, convicted, and had their convictions overturned based on some legal technicality that had nothing to do with the facts, for example a fourth-amendment violation. That doesn't mean they aren't guilty, it just means their conviction was legally tainted.
Legal procedure cannot change facts. It's not like we're talking about a theoretical cat in a box here.
Again, wrong. If he did it, he is guilty. Period. The fact that he was found "not guilty" in a court of law does not mean that he was not guilty as a matter of fact. And no judge, prosecutor, or even defense attorney would ever claim that it did. They all recognize the distinction between being guilty and being found guilty.
azpilot
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 821
- Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
I completely, absolutely and utterly disagree with you. Guilt is something that is established by a court in courtroom. You cannot be guilty unless you are convicted. That is a principal that is enshrined in centuries of law going back hundred of years. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Let's take an example. Let's say John doe 'did it'. What did he do? What statute did he violate? Who decides? What is he guilty of. You can't answer any of those questions legitimately unless Mr. Doe goes to court, and stands trial. After that; after he is convicted, then and only then, can one claim he is guilty.
I will say, if you are ever called in for jury duty, and you don't want to be selected, just share your legal theory with judge when asked. I'll guarantee you won't get picked.
azure
Final Approach
This is the best example I've seen on this board of a heated argument over what amounts to semantics. 
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Just because the FBI has quit, doesn't mean he is free to come out of hiding. the courts still have the option.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
He's lost some weight.
sferguson524
Pattern Altitude
What was this cowboypilot thing you speak of?
Acrodustertoo
Ejection Handle Pulled
Are you sure that is not Chester Copperpot?Here he is:
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Years ago, on the AOPA board, CowboyPilot was a regular poster. Pretty opinionated on all things aviation related. He also talked a lot about his time in the US Army, serving in Viet Nam. He wasn't shy about recalling his experiences and missions. An outside "stolen valor" group logged onto AOPA and outed him as a fake.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Oh, he was on here too and most of his claims were made on here.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ahh. It's been a long time, I thought it was Red.
Once he got caught, he disappeared in a hurry.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I think he was also banned.
sferguson524
Pattern Altitude
Ahhh ok
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'll have to do a deep search for it. I remember that it was a spectacular take-down.
GlennAB1
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,889
- Location
- Home will always be Vandalia, OH
- Display Name
Display name:
GlennAB1
When criminals are arrested, isn't it often said that they are being brought to justice? So, fleeing from justice could be avoiding arrest.