No, presumption of innocence means that The Judge charges the jury AFTER THE TRIAL before jury proceedings that the defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT and the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shut the **** up! If you're not going to address anything I've said, don't quote me or even bother saying anything. I never said anything about what the judge is supposed to tell the jury, or when. I said that presumption of innocence means that the accused has to be granted a trial before he can be punished. The problem is that you seem to want it to mean that there must first be a trial before someone can be arrested and charged with a crime.
That's rich coming from someone who is babbling on, using SAT words, and not knowing what the **** they actually mean. Listen, we're not talking about a trial over whether someone broke your window and interrupted you while watching "Kick My Balls." We're talking about real deal, grown up stuff, mkay?
The presumption of innocence is tied with the due process clause. The due process clause is a fundamental tenet of the criminal law and is contained in Florida statutes.
Who has said anything about denying due process? Stop tearing down the straw man, Dorothy, he didn't do anything to you. Nobody said that Zimmerman should be thrown in prison on a whim and that should be the end of it. The issue that people have is that the police are not interested in arresting and charging Zimmerman for his crime. He should be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted. But your entire position seems to be that charging him would be a violation of due process, which is an absurdity because it would be ADMINISTERING DUE PROCESS.
How many criminal cases have you investigated and gone to trial?
Where did you get your POST training and studied criminal procedure?
Where did you take criminal justice at the university?
Where did I state anywhere I had a problem charging this guy with anything?
If you would educate yourself on the law the police have no duty to arrest anyone if THE LAW AND STATUTES of their state do not warrant them to do so.
I stated clearly that I do not like Florida law and it stinks but that is THE LAW.
I have worked similar cases here where the law was bad and know the process. I have investigated over 200 murder cases and many were self defense under the law.\
I do not like it anymore than you do these gun toting cowboys out there. PROBABLY, the evidence is that this guy chased this kid down, a fight ensued and we do not know who started it.
WE DO KNOW FLORIDA LAW and Florida law is that it is LEGAL to shoot to kill if the otherguy started the fight.
So tell us Clarence, WHO STARTED THE FIGHT AND WHO HIT WHO FIRST?