Zimmerman Threatens Man's Life

[RetiredGySgt]

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

Come on , soldier to soldier. George is a loose cannon who needs an ass whipping.

He is a private citizen hounded by the press and retards. he is not national news and never should have been. He killed someone in self defense and should never have been charged with a crime. Every charge after that was mostly made up and hyped by the Liberal media in an effort to railroad him. Leave him alone and quit making him national news.

Oh, he most certainly should have been charged with a crime, Those were at best questionable circumstances.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Questionable? The cops and the DA investigated it when it happened and ruled it self defense. The State only pressed charges because of politics and their case was so weak they had to lie to get the Judge to charge him. And then the Judge was replaced for making political statements about the case.

 

[Esmeralda]

The trial and jury verdict only prove that the jury found him not guilty based on their opinions of the evidence. He was never proven innocent. If the tables were turned and a black man hunted down and killed a white boy, your opinion would be just the opposite.

Trayvon didn't go home which he could have easily done and/or called the police. His limited intellect and violent impulse turned him around, stalk and attack the "creepy ass cracker".

No theory about it. For all the whining, this was an open-and-shut case from the get go.

Esmeralda is trying to say his actions sense means he wasn't defending himself. Even if he is a Scum bag the courts can't try him for murder again.

They can try him for another murder, which he may very well do, given his behavior and personality.

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Esmeralda is trying to say his actions sense means he wasn't defending himself. Even if he is a Scum bag the courts can't try him for murder again.

They can try him for another murder, which he may very well do, given his behavior and personality.

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Esmeralda is trying to say his actions sense means he wasn't defending himself. Even if he is a Scum bag the courts can't try him for murder again.

They can try him for another murder, which he may very well do, given his behavior and personality.

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

 

[Faun]

They can try him for another murder, which he may very well do, given his behavior and personality.

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

 

[Faun]

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

 

[Faun]

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

 

[Meathead]

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

Who cares? Zim was found not guilty. Quibbling over semantics is a fools errand. The racists were wrong and Zimmerman walked. That's what's important.

 

[Politico]

They can try him for another murder, which he may very well do, given his behavior and personality.

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

Leftytoons don't care about the law lol.

 

[Esmeralda]

You hate guns we get it.

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

Leftytoons don't care about the law lol.

People who call others 'leftytoons' are childish morons who have no place in an adult conversation.

 

[Dot Com]

People can't hate it when a likely murderer has a gun.

And yet you have no evidence he is a likely murderer. He has in fact not murdered anyone at all. Once again your hatred and obsession are wrong. He was found NOT GUILTY by a JURY of his peers as required by law. In the eyes of the law he is in fact INNOCENT since one is innocent till proven guilty. He killed Martin in self defense. That by definition is not murder. Further he still LEGALLY has a carry permit which allows him to carry concealed. So finding him outside his doctors office with a concealed firearm is also NO CRIME.

No! In the eyds of the law he was found not guilty. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT. And oftentimes the law makes mistakes. They made a mistake this time. He is a murderer. He's a complete wacko, as are those who blindly support him. Like you.

Presumed innocence means one found not guilty you are innocent dear.

That's the way it works.

Leftytoons don't care about the law lol.

People who call others 'leftytoons' are childish morons who have no place in an adult conversation.

^ that.

 

[JoeB131]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

 

[Inevitable]

So your contention is that the jury, the police, and the prosecution were all in a conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman got away with murder? That doesn't seem likely.

No, my contention was that they were grossly incompetent.

Prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

Technically true of course, but in practice not guilty means innocent.

 

[Faun]

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

Technically true of course, but in practice not guilty means innocent.

Not in practice either. Again, I defer to my OJ example. With all the evidence against him, no rational person would say OJ was innocent of murder. Yet he was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

Saying defendants who are acquitted are "innocent" means folks who committed crimes, but got off on a technicality, are "innocent," even though they actually did commit the crimes for which they were charged.

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Courts can't render a defendant "innocent" because they're not. At best, they can be found "not guilty" because the government couldn't meet its burden of proof to find them guilty.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

Technically true of course, but in practice not guilty means innocent.

Not in practice either. Again, I defer to my OJ example. With all the evidence against him, no rational person would say OJ was innocent of murder. Yet he was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

Saying defendants who are acquitted are "innocent" means folks who committed crimes, but got off on a technicality, are "innocent," even though they actually did commit the crimes for which they were charged.

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Courts can't render a defendant "innocent" because they're not. At best, they can be found "not guilty" because the government couldn't meet its burden of proof to find them guilty.

Not guilty is NOT the same thing as innocent, you're right, but in practical terms you are either guilty of a crime or you are innocent of a crime.

The reason courts can't find a defendant innocent is because under our system of law there is no reason to do so. We don't make defendants prove they are innocent and thus there is no reason for a verdict of innocent.

It's semantics to be sure, but very important semantics to our system. Once you are free to go, you are innocent in all practical terms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually retard, in the eyes of the LAW one is INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. He was not proven guilty thus according to the LAW he is innocent.

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

As a matter of fact he was. I watched that trial and the prosecution was so inept it was criminal. The defense p;roved over and over that OJ was probably set up by Furman and the police.

 

[Faun]

If he was "innocent," then why was he locked up? Are you saying we put innocent people in jail?

Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.

Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is "presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[...]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]​

So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to translate my post into that conclusion. I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either "guilty" or "not guilty." No court finds them "innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are "presumed" innocent. "Presumed" innocent is not the same as "actually" innocent.

To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy, OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.

As a matter of fact he was. I watched that trial and the prosecution was so inept it was criminal. The defense p;roved over and over that OJ was probably set up by Furman and the police.

???

OJ's blood was found at the crime scene. How did Furman and/or the police get OJ's blood??