Do you believe that you are innocent until proven guilty? You shouldn't. In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the common law precept of the presumption of innocence no longer exists. The concept of innocence until guilt is proven is not found in the Declaration of Independence, nor is it found in the Constitution of the United States (what this country was prior to its takeover by socialist democrats). The idea that an individual is to be presumed innocent until a prosecuting authority can prove guilt is an ancient legal concept found in most civilized societies around the world. It was established as a rule for jurisprudence in the old United States in a landmark 1895 Supreme Court decision.
In Coffin vs United States the Supreme Court upheld the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The criminal case revolved around charges of bank fraud. In the course of issuing its decision, the Supreme Court made this assertion about innocence until guilt is proven, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its
enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal
law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence
in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us
consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition
of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause.
It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the
presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to
bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a
cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the
other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the
jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly
in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their
conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the
exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by
correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the
principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the
doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of
these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order
that the other may continue to exist."
There is a lot of legalese in that paragraph but I think you get the point. The law of this land used to be that nobody could be arrested on the grounds that a crime was presumed to have taken place and then required to prove his innocence. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the prosecutorial authority to make a case against the alleged criminal sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence is a biblical principle. Under biblical law an offended party is required to prove to the elders that the alleged perpetrator did in fact commit the sin/crime against him. Nobody is ever granted a hearing in the presence of the elders who simply claims that someone has sinned against him and now needs to prove that his allegation is not true. The burden of proof is always on the back of the one who claims victim status.
The principle changed significantly as the government of the United States officially became the victim of all crimes, regardless of who the real victim was. Now the prosecutor in all cases is a government employee known as a District Attorney who has unlimited access to taxpayer funds and as much time as he needs to engage in his prosecutions. Despite this very real unfair advantage given to the prosecutor, his hands were still bound by the presumption of innocence. Or, at least, they used to be. That is the situation no more.
In a tiny, two paragraph, story tucked away on an obscure page of the Denver Post last week I saw an article entitled, "Police seize 1,100 marijuana plants." The article caught my eye because I was operating under the assumption that marijuana was legal in Colorado. If that is true how could the police arrest someone for growing a legal product? I don't recall ever reading any stories about the police seizing 1,100 corn plants and arresting the farmer who grew them. Nor could I recall ever reading any story about the police seizing 1,100 cattle and arresting the rancher who was raising them. It didn't make sense to me so I read the two paragraphs.
Apparently a neighbor of the two people who were arrested for growing the marijuana was upset with them for some reason so he called the cops and told them that there was a "grow house" next to his home. Once again, since marijuana is legal, why should it be illegal to grow it? The article never addresses that issue. What it does say is this, "A Firestone pair caught growing more than 1,000 marijuana plants in a Lafayette home face felony cultivation charges, and must now prove that the grow operation is not illegal." Ignore the fact that growing marijuana in Colorado is not supposed to be illegal and focus upon the final part of that quote. The accused must "now prove that the grow operation is not illegal."
Since when do the cops have the right to arrest people and tell them that they have to prove that what they were doing when they were arrested was not illegal. Isn't the role of the cops in this land to arrest people when they can prove that what we are doing is illegal? If cops are free to arrest anyone they want and then inform the poor person who has just been arrested that he has to prove that something he was doing was not illegal, then we are forced to admit that the principle of innocent until proven guilty no longer exists in this immoral land.
Besides the moral outrage that I felt as I read that article about jack-booted thugs invading a person's home on an anonymous tip from a hate-filled neighbor and arresting a couple for a crime they did not commit while informing them that they are presumed to be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent, the thing that bothered me the most about the article was the total lack of public outcry over the arrest. Where is the ACLU? Where is Jesse Jackson? Where is Al Sharpton? Where were all of the investigative reporters from the local television news stations? Since when is a blatant assertion that a citizen of the SDA is presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence not newsworthy?
We have become a nation of sheeple. We are being blindly led down the path to the slaughterhouse by our government captors and nary a single one of us has even noticed what is going on. Cops can arrest people for growing legal products. Cops can arrest people based upon tips from neighbors, thus turning all citizens into agents of the state, constantly spying on each other in search of violations of the enormous body of immoral laws we are living under. Then, after the arrest has been made, the 1895 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is thrown out and the hapless detainee is informed that he will be thrown into prison if he cannot successfully prove that he is innocent. Get used to it sheeple. More is coming.