Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Yeah, Right.

Late last month the dogs belonging to Ving Rhames were accused of mauling a man to death on the actors property. Yahoo news and the Associated Press seemed certain of this in their stories so it had to be true. The actor was out of the country at the time of the incident and probably couldn't have been held responsible anyway, but it was disturbing to see the public conclude he was guilty of "something" nonetheless. Well the autopsy has been completed and it turns out the dog bite wounds "were superficial" according to the coroner's report. The wounds were on his arms and legs, and in no way were life threatening. When dogs attack to kill the wounds are usually found near the face and neck, and none were found in those areas of the victim.

Now I will be the first to admit that celebrities in general get a free pass for just about everything they do, but can we at least let the case get to court before we convict and hang someone? Michael Vick is a prime example of this. I have no idea what the man is guilty of, and neither does anyone else except him and maybe the witnesses involved in the case. But all of my friends are absolutely sure he's guilty of something. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. That's not for us to decide unless you happen to be sitting on the jury. Let due process run it's course before we hang someone. Sheesh!

DT