nice except that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making or the point of the person making the analogy was going for.

were you here yesterday railing against the unjust hardship caused by suspending the girl from Detroit for bringing a knife to school?

Schools are well equipped to deal with most violations on school grounds. The same cannot possibly be true for crimes that occur outside the purview of the school. How exactly are they supposed to provide for proper due process under those circumstances. Lest you think I'm alone along these lines, see today's op-ed…

as I said to your last post: "You are fine presuming he is guilty, hell I presume he is guilty, but that doesn't mean you throw out due process based on the presumption"

You must not be a regular Jez reader, so I"m not sure why you are here. It was the big story yesterday. "Alleged" is a legal designation. You are fine presuming he is guilty, hell I presume he is guilty, but that doesn't mean you throw out due process.

so "it's possible not to" somehow means everyone shouldn't? How is that relevant at all other than to say that it is perfectly all right not to suspend but they can based on particular determinations (of which there haven't been here).

There is a reason they are called logical fallacies. I want everyone "to be hip to them" because they are a detriment to having useful discourse.

"WTF, do you think you're the only one who sees your bullshit tactics?" what does that even mean?

how is that a deflection, that was the direct reply to a comment on the actual WA state athletic code?

so based on a completely unfounded assumption you are making your conclusions, nice. Despite this, I would defend you if your rights had been violated regardless of the crime because defending principles often means defending unsavory people.

Yeah, I'm sure that is what you meant, uh huh, nice backtracking on your assumptions

do you consider all defense attorneys to be apologists for their behavior as well as suspect of crimes themselves?

This is actually a good example of the ridiculous extremes in the "war on drugs" that this is the only offense that gets you suspended from sports as far as the state is concerned.

That would be something contractually agreed to by all parties. Apples and Oranges.

well then why even have a trial?

what excuse did I use? Did I say he was innocent? Did I say the victim was lying?

1) I don't think they should be doing it in the other cases either. That is what is called applying the principle uniformly. That is why I was against the girl being suspended in yesterday's story for having a pocket knife.
2) I'm not ready to presume that the judge is racist.

Nice presumption that I'm a man. I guess you don't think women should be lawyers? Who's the misogynist now?
Safety concerns may be reasonable, but there was no exploration or evidence presented one way or the other in the article.

Bail is rarely denied and usually has more to do with being a flight risk than the degree of the offense.

this is just nonsense, if you are going to troll try harder.