• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

for all posters zimmerman , guilty or innocent ?

zimmerman is guilty ?

  • Total voters
    31
TheNextEra said:
I doubt it would have hurt Oscar, me, or anyone else. I did not hold an emotional attachment to this trial like many of Trayvon's supporters have. If Zimmerman would hvae been found guilty, I, and many others would have simply continued our lives.
Click to expand...

l am not sure

some people claimed they would feel hurt

:lol:
 
TheNextEra said:
Did you spit foam out your mouth when typing that too angry man?

Sorry my point stands. I've said what I thought about Zimmerman and if you want to throw a little mantrum, be my guest.
Click to expand...
:lamo

:doh
Are you reading what you want to read?
Obviously you are if you got spitting foam from that.
Which makes your reply more like a mantrum.

You are just throwing out an excuse.
Whether you like it or not.
He is still entitled to the presumption of innocence.
 
Excon said:
You are just throwing out an excuse.
Whether you like it or not.
He is still entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

No excuses, just the truth. A NOT GUILTY is not the same as proven innocent. No matter how much you hate the truth.
 
TheNextEra said:
No excuses, just the truth. A NOT GUILTY is not the same as proven innocent. No matter how much you hate the truth.
Click to expand...

Apparently you only read what you want something to say. Do'h!


I have already said that is technically correct. Did you somehow not read that?
It is still just an excuse, as the person found not guilty, means, they are not guilty and preserves the presumption of innocence. That is factual and the truth.
 
Medusa said:
l know if he was found guilty

it would hurt many of you oscaR
Click to expand...

based on the evidence, I would have thought it was a miscarriage of justice had he been found guilty...but it would not have "hurt" me in any way.
 
TheNextEra said:
No excuses, just the truth. A NOT GUILTY is not the same as proven innocent. No matter how much you hate the truth.
Click to expand...

If the case was dismissed on a technicality I might agree, but it was not. You are innocent until proven guilty no matter what the court of public opinion says. So Zimmerman was presumed innocent, being found "not guilty" by a jury of your peer's maintains a presumption of innocence.

So you would be wrong on this.
 
Black Manta said:
If the case was dismissed on a technicality I might agree, but it was not. You are innocent until proven guilty no matter what the court of public opinion says. So Zimmerman was presumed innocent, being found "not guilty" by a jury of your peer's maintains a presumption of innocence.

So you would be wrong on this.
Click to expand...

No, I am not wrong. A NOT GUILTY verdict does not mean PROVEN INNOCENT. There is a presumption of innocence, but it is not proven with a NOT GUILTY verdict. O.J. Simpson was found NOT GUILTY, yet in a wrongful death suit found GUILTY. Obviously a NOT GUILTY does not mean PROVEN INNOCENT so I am right.
 
Black Manta said:
If the case was dismissed on a technicality I might agree, but it was not. You are innocent until proven guilty no matter what the court of public opinion says. So Zimmerman was presumed innocent, being found "not guilty" by a jury of your peer's maintains a presumption of innocence.

So you would be wrong on this.
Click to expand...

And you know what "presumption" does. It makes a sump out of pet, rip and not.

I disagree -- this is an important principle, in my opinion. Not guilty simply means not proven. While I do agree that the presumption of innocence remains...that an acquitted defendant is presumed innocent...that is not a finding of factual innocence.

If it were? Civil trials would always lose because the perfect defense would be, "He was proven innocent in a court of law."
 
TheNextEra said:
O.J. Simpson was found NOT GUILTY, yet in a wrongful death suit found GUILTY.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing.
Being found responsible in a civil trial does not mean one is guilty.
 
TheNextEra said:
No, I am not wrong. A NOT GUILTY verdict does not mean PROVEN INNOCENT. There is a presumption of innocence, but it is not proven with a NOT GUILTY verdict. O.J. Simpson was found NOT GUILTY, yet in a wrongful death suit found GUILTY. Obviously a NOT GUILTY does not mean PROVEN INNOCENT so I am right.
Click to expand...

Again you are confusing public opinion with the law. You are innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecution cannot prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt you are presumed innocent.

Yes you are wrong. Go to any law dictionary and look it up...

Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. - Innocent until proven guilty legal definition of Innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
MaggieD said:
And you know what "presumption" does. It makes a sump out of pet, rip and not.

I disagree -- this is an important principle, in my opinion. Not guilty simply means not proven. While I do agree that the presumption of innocence remains...that an acquitted defendant is presumed innocent...that is not a finding of factual innocence.

If it were? Civil trials would always lose because the perfect defense would be, "He was proven innocent in a court of law."
Click to expand...

No Maggie. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not a perfect anything. Again a law dictionary will help...

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her 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. - Innocent until proven guilty legal definition of Innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Civil law is very different from criminal law. You are not presumed innocent under civil law.
 
Last edited:
Black Manta said:
No Maggie. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not a perfect anything. Again a law dictionary will help...

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her 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. - Innocent until proven guilty legal definition of Innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

Black Manta! Your own quote proves my point:

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.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
Black Manta! Your own quote proves my point:
Click to expand...

So what does this mean if the person is found not guilty due to a lack of evidence? They are also talking about actual evidence, it does not apply to what you are trying to say.
 
Black Manta said:
So what does this mean if the person is found not guilty due to a lack of evidence?
Click to expand...

It means they've been found Not Guilty and thus are presumed innocent. There is no distinction in a court of law.
 
Black Manta said:
Exactly. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. But, of course, that wasn't what I was arguing about. My argument is that a presumption of innocence is not the same as being innocent. (You knew that. Really, can't you just say, "Yeah, I see your point. I guess you're right?")
 
MaggieD said:
You're welcome. But, of course, that wasn't what I was arguing about. My argument is that a presumption of innocence is not the same as being innocent. (You knew that. Really, can't you just say, "Yeah, I see your point. I guess you're right?")
Click to expand...

After you have been found not guilty, under the law you are innocent. It's that simple. The law makes no distinction beyond that. You are not sort of found not guilty.

I know what youre saying, and it does not have much to do with my initial statement. Which is why I am not addressing that.
 
Black Manta said:
After you have been found not guilty, under the law you are innocent. It's that simple. The law makes no distinction beyond that. You are not sort of found not guilty.
Click to expand...

You are not innocent. You are presumed innocent under the law. And round-and-round we go. I think I'll just leave this alone as I can see dozens of posts with me saying, "Did not," and you saying, "Did too." ;)
 
MaggieD said:
You are not innocent. You are presumed innocent under the law. And round-and-round we go. I think I'll just leave this alone as I can see dozens of posts with me saying, "Did not," and you saying, "Did too." ;)
Click to expand...

lol!

I am not talking about before the trial, again that's why I did not address it. I know a presumption of innocence before the trail is just that, a presumption. Next extra is trying to say after you are found not guilty, it does not mean found innocent.

My point is after you are found innocent by a jury of your pears, the presumption in no longer that and is now a fact. Under the law you are now innocent of all charges.

See where the confusion was?
 
there are lots of personal attacks in this thread and l hope they are noticed

it just means fascism
 
Juanita said:
I am emotionally involved in this case because I have had family members and friends murdered... In Chicago they would have labeled this case as gang related and it wouldn't have got the publicity that this case in Florida has received..... Demeaning our President and our activists accomplishes nothing but further division....
Click to expand...

They set themselves up by injecting their positions into this case and making it an issue of race... which we all know now is FALSE!

BTW to demean someone is the same as humiliating them... Do your really believe the president, Sharpton, Jackson, or any of their followers feel humiliated by their actions/statements on the case? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom