You Are GUILTY
Rod Klingler Rod Klingler
A terrible precedent has been set in America, and it needs to die a quick death. It is the presumption of guilt. We used to be a country that believed in the foundational principle of presumptive innocence. As in "innocent until proven guilty."
This important principle is at the very root of the three pillars of our Constitutional society: life, liberty, and property (also referred to as "the pursuit of happiness"). Without the presumption of innocence, these three can be taken from us for any reason.
Sadly, we are now a country that practices and allows the presumption of guilt.
This important principle is at the very root of the three pillars of our Constitutional society: life, liberty, and property (also referred to as "the pursuit of happiness"). Without the presumption of innocence, these three can be taken from us for any reason.
Sadly, we are now a country that practices and allows the presumption of guilt.
CPS
Know anyone who has had CPS (Child "Protective" Services) called on them? How did that go for them? It usually happens like this:
- Someone calls CPS.
There is no step 2. In the eyes of the state, you are now a criminal, and must prove your innocence through a series of long, drawn out, invasive interrogations, court visits, and usually the loss of your children for any period of time, up to and including permanently. Hopefully you have the time and money to endure this experience before your children are doled out to foster care, or worse. (But that doesn't really happen, right?)
Why is this a problem? Do you hate children? Not at all, but to protect innocent citizens from heinous government overreach, the burden of proof must be on the accuser. That is why, under Constitutional law, a warrant must be obtained, and it cannot be obtained on hearsay. People can be nasty to each other, and lies roll easily off the tongue. In Idaho alone, over 80% of CPS cases are fraudulent! But those > 80% go through the same experience as the < 20% who are guilty.
But that's just one situation where we are presumed guilty. Let's look at some others.
Homeschooling
At a recent Harvard event, a professor Elizabeth Bartholet suggested that the state should assume authority over our children, and take that authority from parents. Why? Because, she asserts, we should presume parents are ignorant child abusers. It is an unbelievable statement, so feel free to read the link. Fair warning: you will come out of that article with fewer IQ points than when you went in.
Once again, guilt should be presumed. The price? The ability to raise our children as we see fit. Instead, they must be indoctrinated by the state like all the other good little kiddies in public school. You know, the ones who are learning about deviant sex acts and idolizing Communists.
Black Lives Matter
The very concept of "Systemic racism" presumes guilt on the part of all "White" people, and apparently justifies assaults on innocent victims, and the destruction of their personal property. Wait, that sounds familiar… Oh yeah, we said it earlier: "Without the presumption of innocence, all three [life, liberty, and property] can be taken from us for any reason." All while the police are "standing by."
Chad Daybell & Lori Vallow…?
Because this principle is so vital to our freedom, it is important that we apply it consistently, even in unpopular situations.
In the oldest Idaho Statesman article we could find mentioning Daybell, dated Dec. 20, 2019, we learn that they were under investigation for the following reasons:
- "Rexburg Police tried to conduct a welfare check on Joshua Vallow, Lori Vallow’s adopted 7-year-old special-needs son" at the request of "[r]elatives outside of Idaho".
- And "the parents… repeatedly lied about the whereabouts of the children."
When did it become the purview of the police to check on the whereabouts of our children? Is it any of their business? Are we required by law to tell them when asked? Is this any different than the CPS visits mentioned above?
The answers, as far as we can tell, are Never, No, No, and No. Please correct us if we are mistaken.
The fact that they performed the checkup visit, and then attempted to verify that the kids were with their relatives, demonstrates a presumption of guilt. The article states that the police returned with a warrant the following day, which is curious since no evidence of wrongdoing was mentioned, just the suspicions of family members.
The couple themselves said the "allegations" were "speculation and rumor", which shows that there was not previous evidence. According to that article:
The couple is also connected to two active death investigations involving both of their former spouses — one in Fremont County and another in Maricopa County, Arizona. However, authorities in both jurisdictions say Chad and Lori are not persons of interest or suspects in those cases.
No charges have been filed against Chad or Lori in Idaho or Arizona. So far, Rexburg Police have only indicated they want to talk with the couple to ensure the children are OK.
Suspicions and hearsay are not legal qualifications for an investigation, let alone the subsequent taxpayer expense to fly to Hawaii to apprehend Lori Vallow, dig up yards, and whatever else has been involved.
Lucky for the police, their "belief" (as it is called in the Statesman article) may have turned out to be correct in this case. But what if it wasn't? Would we support this form of legal abuse if they were innocent? What if they are? We don't actually know at this point.
And if they are guilty, does that excuse the presumption of guilt, and all that that entails?