Comments Thread For: Adrien Broner Facing a Robbery Charge in Ohio

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

What kind of man punches a poor old woman in the face and steals 40$ out of her purse?

A hungry man.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Tell that to Floyd Mayweather.

It comes down to this really, one either believes in the presumption of innocence (until proven otherwise) or one doesn't.

The presumption of innocence is the standard in a court of law, and rightfully so, but it's an entirely different matter in the "court of public opinion." We all know some innocent people wind up in jail, but there are also many guilty persons who walk away scott-free. I don't know enough about Broner's case to make certain assertions, but this case and his shady past make him difficult to defend.

[Bretty Poy32]

A hungry man.

What if youre only thirsty?

[thuggery]

A hungry man.

.................no

[LeG00N]

A hungry man.

.......................

[Hiei]

A hungry man.

your a












































dumb phaggot

[Scarcaztic]

A hungry man.

Why not sell drugs instead of punching old ladies in the face?

[Thad Castle]

It is never a option to punch a lady let alone a elderly women.

Whoever cant see how wrong that is or make circumstances where the situation can be accepted lack moral fibers. Probably due to being raised wrong, bad parents or just someone who really indeed sees nothing wrong with it, which in our society we call sociopaths.

[LA_2_Vegas]

Boxing sometimes attracts questionable people and I accepted that long ago. At its best, it serves as a place to go for people to learn the sport and simultaneously save them and steer them away from that type of life.

Hopefully for him and little ole ladies everywhere that this is in the past.

[Weebler I]

The presumption of innocence is the standard in a court of law, and rightfully so, but it's an entirely different matter in the "court of public opinion." We all know some innocent people wind up in jail, but there are also many guilty persons who walk away scott-free. I don't know enough about Broner's case to make certain assertions, but this case and his shady past make him difficult to defend.

So what then, trial by media?

I wasn't necessarily defending him, just drawing the conclusion that he can't be considered to have committed a crime which was never proven.

I'm also not sure about the idea that he hired an expensive lawyer to get him off because theoretically if he had that money to begin with he wouldn't have been stealing purses in the first place (unless one supposes he was doing it for fun).