Should child molesters be considered guilty before proven innocent?

No, but thats because they had no choice. Look if the child molestor is about to put his penis into the little girl and a cop jumps in tells him to stop but he moves forward then the cop is damn well allowed to shoot.

A cop should be allowed to shoot a terrorist thats planting a bomb.
However once the bomb has already gone off he shouldn't shoot the guy anymore he should arrest and put him into trial.

The thing is, you can't preven the crime from happening anymore with the child molestor, so you have to put him to trial. You can stop the crime from happening in other situatiosn so yeah the cop should be allowed to shoot. An investigation will show if he was right or not, if not he's screwed. But he has to make a choice, he can't wait until the crime has already happened then arrest the guy and then put him to trial. Its better to shoot the criminal and try to prevent it.

I thought the scenario was a man about to molest a child?

If he's caught just before or while commiting the crime and he doesn't stop after a warning then the cop is damn well allowed to shoot the guy. No doubt about that in my mind, an investigation will happen and see if he had the right to shoot the guy or not, they will say yes because it pretty much saved somebody so everything is fine.

However if the cop didn't save anybody by shooting the guy then what he did was just plain wrong.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No double standard....
I've seen the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." used by you and every other person on this thread. Yet when this scenario arises the person is treated as guilty until proven innocent by subsequent inquest.

No it is not....not by the state at least...there is a double standard the state has to keep to the "innocent.......", but a single person doesn't because they have to look out for themself.

Here is a what if for you; What if a man caught another man molesting a child and the molester jumped out the window. The man tries to comfort the traumatized child or give the child medical aid, and then someone else comes in and accuses the man of the crime. If the child is not able to clear the men, then it can seem that the wrong person was accused. I had a hard time wording this but I hope you get the point. You always have to have a trile even if all of the evidence points to the accused. See the movie the green mile.

Well but you are proven guilty then are you not? If you get caught molesting the child it is proven that you molested it....but if there is only evidence that you might have robbed the bank or molested the child you have to be treated innocent until you are proven guilty.

Quite simply, NOBODY should be considered guilty before they have been proved guilty. Otherwise, there is no point in them going to court

And yet somehow a shoot-to-kill policy isn't inconsistent with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

Well if you put it that way. 😘 😘 😘

Well, if you catch him doing it, then that IS proof of him being guilty

No because then everyone would run around calling everyone else a child molester, and they'd all have to time-wastingly be proven innocent.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And yet somehow a shoot-to-kill policy isn't inconsistent with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

That's not the point - prevention of a crime is dfferent to punishment for a crime. After a crime is commited, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty whilst on trial for their punishment (if guilty).

However, in order to prevent a crime, the state is within its rights to detain or stop anybody who appears suspicous. Of course, the state must also have a good reason to arrest somebody ,and definately to shoot them - the situation you keep referring to, the man ran from the police - who were already highly strung due to the bombs - and so they assumed he was guilty. After all, why run?

If he had simply surrendered himself to the police, then he would have been cleared of any charges - innocent until proven guilty.

Actually I haven't been referring to that example in particular but if we are going to refer to it then you should realise the interpretation of that situation you've just given is outdated.

BBC News
Initial witness reports suggested he was wearing a thick, padded jacket, despite the warm weather. And police said soon after the shooting that the dead man's clothing and behaviour had added to their suspicions.

Yet documents and photographs at the scene suggest he was wearing a blue denim jacket or shirt.

Mr Menezes, still being followed, got off the bus in Stockwell Road, a short walk from the Tube station.

He crossed Clapham Road and entered the station at about 1000, stopping to pick up a copy of the free Metro newspaper before passing through the automatic ticket barriers, using his Underground pass.

At least one witness initially said he saw the man vaulting the barriers. But he later acknowledged that it could have been one of the pursuing officers.

By this time, officers had received "positive identification" that Mr Menezes was their suspect, according to the leaked papers.

He began travelling down the escalator towards the northbound Northern Line platform, and at some point began running towards the train. Originally, this was interpreted by witnesses (and not dismissed by police) as an attempt to escape the pursuing officers.

But the documents suggest it might have been because he heard or spotted a train arriving at the platform.
Mr Menezes entered a carriage of a northbound Northern Line train and sat on a seat facing the platform.

The leaked documents suggest a surveillance officer, codenamed Hotel 3, followed him on to the train and sat a few seats away. According to his account, there were other members of the surveillance team near the open doors.

"Hotel 3" reportedly got up and held the doors open for armed officers whom he spotted on the platform.

He said in his statement that he heard shouting - including the word "police" - before Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards him and the armed police.

The officer said he grabbed the man, wrapping his arms around him and pinning his arms to his side. He pushed the man back into his seat and heard the first of the gun shots, according to the leaked statement.

Police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. The documents said three other bullets had missed him.

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

Of course.......I guess it won't take long to find him guilty butin general yes.......what do you sugggest.....torture him a little before trial?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Actually I haven't been referring to that example in particular but if we are going to refer to it then you should realise the interpretation of that situation you've just given is outdated.

But that's just a stupid example....the system never said this was ok...and if it would be a non-corrupted system the shooters would face a trial for murder as any other person that shot someone........but they too would be innocent until proven guilty.

Your example...as sad as you might think it is, has nothing to do with the case in any way.

I didn't bring up the example. However there is an intrinsic inconsistency in vehemently supporting the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." and yet allowing police officers the discretion to effectively punish people (with what amounts to a death sentence) for crimes uncommitted on the basis of pure suspicion.
The example is in fact a valid one, from what is currently known, it amounts to the summary extrajudicial execution of an innocent man within the "system" you love to refer to, at the time, but not in retrospect.

Of course.......I guess it won't take long to find him guilty butin general yes.......what do you sugggest.....torture him a little before trial?

Originally posted by finti
why not

I am not sure how to answer that, going by my understanding of morals I'd agree with you, but by the ones I made for myself I can just say, are you serious?.....why torture them before they are found guilty (or what if they are not?)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't bring up the example. However there is an intrinsic inconsistency in vehemently supporting the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." and yet allowing police officers the discretion to effectively punish people (with what amounts to a death sentence) for crimes uncommitted on the basis of pure suspicion.
The example is in fact a valid one, from what is currently known, it amounts to the summary extrajudicial execution of an innocent man within the "system" you love to refer to, at the time, but not in retrospect.

It just is a whole different thiong, it'S like I am saying apples are red but you answer isn't there an inconsistency since bananas are yellow.

It is a whole different thing, the government say "every person is innocent until proven guilty".
In a second sentence the government say, "If a police officer is in danger he has the righjt to protect his life"

That are two different things, the government doesn't say treat the suspect as guiltxy but it says if you are in danger you have the same right every other human being in this world has, you are allowed to protect yourself. If you don't see that first this doesn't have anthing tod do with the other law and second that it is important and rightly put in the law code then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Not to forget that the government puts in a third law that even keeps the second balanced, "Every usage odf the second law will lead to an investigation and if unjustly used to a trial"

Originally posted by Bardock42
It just is a whole different thiong, it'S like I am saying apples are red but you answer isn't there an inconsistency since bananas are yellow.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a whole different thing, the government say "every person is innocent until proven guilty".
In a second sentence the government say, "If a police officer is in danger he has the righjt to protect his life"

That are two different things, the government doesn't say treat the suspect as guiltxy but it says if you are in danger you have the same right every other human being in this world has, you are allowed to protect yourself. If you don't see that first this doesn't have anthing tod do with the other law and second that it is important and rightly put in the law code then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Not to forget that the government puts in a third law that even keeps the second balanced, "Every usage odf the second law will lead to an investigation and if unjustly used to a trial"

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard.
The government instruct the police force that people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty in the judicial system. However the government allows the police force the discretion to employ extrajudicial execution on pure suspicion. I have no problem with people supporting a shoot-to-kill policy, but to not acknowledge that it both contravenes and erodes the legal concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." is delusion as it allows for pre-emptive punishment for crimes as yet uncommitted, and as the case of Mr. Menezes shows may never be committed. "If you don't see that then I don't know what's wrong with you."

Well you arguement is the worst I have ever heard......hard to make something of it.

No it doesn't...it fdoesn't say yo guys you shoot them if they nbehave suspicious....they say you can guard your life because you are a huan and every human has the right to protect themself.

Now if the cops wopn't get opunished this is not the fault of the system because the system makes clear that they have to be punished....I am sorry if you live in a country where the system is corrupted but youi can't blame it for that really.

I am not supporting a "Police officers are allowed to shoot people that behave suspicious" - policy, but a "If you or another huan is in real danger you are allowed to protect yourself and them.....not because you are an officer and the law around here but because human decency allows you not to put yourself at such a high risk" .......I see that your arguement is logical but it is based on the wrong assumptions and therefore just wrong as a whoel.