Your argument can be used to support a new round of witch hunts. "The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process."sorry thats not good enough, 80% of those that died in south korea, gee well you all died, but good news we will charge those that infected you, in a situation like this there is no presumption of innocence, if this was a more deadly virus the goverment would have every right to kill you for breaking quarantine, as they can't risk waiting to find if your infected or not same here. Maybe once we have ways to test ou can go in with a recent test showing your not sick, but no you don't have the same rights now.
You describe the system in force today, but I'm suggesting it is unconstitutional.If it's traced back to his church where he invited people even though he didn't personally infect anyone he would still be an accessory or held completely liable because that building is under his control.
But the point is that people could die and if they did he should be arrested for negligent homicide. Money isn't going to do them any good after they're dead.
Moncayo's employer, subcontractor Sky Materials Corporation, pleaded guilty to manslaughter last month and must also pay a $10,000 fine, as well as $100,000 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Sky foreman Wilmer Cueva was sentenced in December to one to three years in prison for disregarding safety warnings before the accident, and Harco employee Alfonso Prestia was sentenced to community service and probation.
NYC contractor charged with manslaughter in worker's death
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Maybe so, but we need to be protected from morons who assemble. If they want to do themselves in, that's one thing. But they are recklessly endangering lives.
That may be how it's practiced, but I'm suggesting it's unconstitutional.The assembly of people with communicable diseases is well within the purview of restriction during National Emergencies so that displays of wholesale ignorance can be constrained to minimize the impact of a modern plague of Biblical proportion.
If we ban everything that leads to death, then everything would be banned, and we would have no freedom at all. A big part of life involves the freedom of expression and assembly, and life inevitably leads to death, whether we like it or not. IMO that's one reason why the foundation of this republic is based on innocence (freedom) until guilt is proven - not guilt presumed before innocence is proven."A slippery slope" is a very weak argument, based on a misinterpretation of the freedom of Expression. A slippery slope beats watching loved ones being lowered into their graves.
Investigation of individuals does not equal punishment as a result of presumption of guilt.Innocent until proven guilty is an injunction given to private citizens, not the government. The government is not required to presume innocence which is why the police are free to investigate those they presume are guilty.
I sacrifice no one by allowing everyone the freedom to experience the effects of the causes that they make.
Your argument can be used to support a new round of witch hunts. "The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process."
Oh come on. I suspected this crisis would bring out this kind of weird thinking."Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This is possibly one of the dumbest things that I have read in these forums. And that is saying something.We cannot and should not prosecute possibilities.
What I'm speaking about has nothing to do with killing others, but what Constitutional law says.guess what this is a reality, multiple churches have been linked to DEATHS, I don't care what side you lean on Christians should be leaning on the side of not KILLING PEOPLE. You and those complaining are disgusting, god wouldn't want us out there killing others just to feel pious.