• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Guilty but not Innocent WTF [W:64]

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
huffpo%20shark%20jump.jpg

whats this crap "Not Innocent"
Isn't one of our corner stones to our justice system Innocent till proven guilty. was he proven guilty? no so he was and remains innocent

I know we have freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility and the left wing media like MSNBC and Huffington post are acting irresponsible, criminally irresponsible, and they need to answer to somebody. you cant go around acting that irresponsible. i don't know what can be done but what ever can be needs to be

What can be done?
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,963
Reaction score
21,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Juries don't find people "innocent." They find people "not guilty." There actually is a difference. He is innocent in terms of law for that reason. That doesn't mean in fact he is innocent, though I am certain he is myself.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The guilty parties are those who pushed this for their political agendas include o'failure himself.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Juries don't find people "innocent." They find people "not guilty." There actually is a difference. He is innocent in terms of law for that reason. That doesn't mean in fact he is innocent, though I am certain he is myself.
If he is innocent till proven guilty and he was not proven guilty when. where and from whom does he loss his innocence and what process is there to gain it back

Until you can answer those questions your full of crap

the reason juries find you not guilty because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,963
Reaction score
21,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If he is innocent till proven guilty and he was not proven guilty when and where and from whom does he loss his innocence and what process is there to gain it back

Until you can answer those questions your full of crap
No, I am absolutely correct. How the legal system sees someone is limited to just that. The jury did not find him "innocent" as a fact. It found the government didn't prove him guilty as a fact.

It goes both ways. If the jury/judge/government finds someone guilty, that does not mean the person is in fact guilty. All this is obvious. Raging about it just makes you look foolish.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, I am absolutely correct. How the legal system sees someone is limited to just that. The jury did not find him "innocent" as a fact. It found the government didn't prove him guilty as a fact.

It goes both ways. If the jury/judge/government finds someone guilty, that does not mean the person is in fact guilty. All this is obvious. Raging about it just makes you look foolish.
the reason juries find you "not guilty" instead of "innocent" because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have

your the one who is the fool
 
Last edited:

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
the reason juries find you not guilty because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have
Why is it that so many conservatives are unable to spell? Your/you're, there/their/they're, to/too, therefore/there for...

While your message isn't lost, it's hard to take seriously.

Anyway, presumed innocent is simply procedural. No one in this case is "innocent". According to christians, no one is innocent. The only way GZ could be innocent, was if he wasn't involved at all. Not guilty is a correct and accurate term.

btw, did GZ, Mr. IwannabeAcop presume TM was innocent?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,322
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

View attachment 67150337

whats this crap "Not Innocent"
Isn't one of our corner stones to our justice system Innocent till proven guilty. was he proven guilty? no so he was and remains innocent

I know we have freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility and the left wing media like MSNBC and Huffington post are acting irresponsible, criminally irresponsible, and they need to answer to somebody. you cant go around acting that irresponsible. i don't know what can be done but what ever can be needs to be

What can be done?
Just curious, was that your opinion in the O.J. Simpson case? How about the Michael Jackson case?

Personally, as soon as a jury finds someone "not guilty" I am content that they are innocent. Why? Because I actually BELIEVE a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If the State fails to meet that burden, then the Defendant is innocent.

Strange though, most people seem to think they have a right to decide for themselves in the "court of public opinion." Go figure. :confused:
 
Last edited:

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why is it that so many conservatives are unable to spell? Your/you're, there/their/they're, to/too, therefore/there for...

While your message isn't lost, it's hard to take seriously.

Anyway, presumed innocent is simply procedural. No one in this case is "innocent". According to christians, no one is innocent. The only way GZ could be innocent, was if he wasn't involved at all. Not guilty is a correct and accurate term.

btw, did GZ, Mr. IwannabeAcop presume TM was innocent?
the state presumes your innocent till they are able to prove you are guilty which they failed to do there for you never lost your innocents there for you remain innocent your innocence was never lost
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,103
Reaction score
45,047
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is it that so many conservatives are unable to spell? Your/you're, there/their/they're, to/too, therefore/there for...

While your message isn't lost, it's hard to take seriously.

Anyway, presumed innocent is simply procedural. No one in this case is "innocent". According to christians, no one is innocent. The only way GZ could be innocent, was if he wasn't involved at all. Not guilty is a correct and accurate term.

btw, did GZ, Mr. IwannabeAcop presume TM was innocent?
Zimmerman suspected Trayvon of doing something suspicious and then Trayvon, recognizing that he was being "checked out", seems to have made a series of decisions that only served to reinforce Zimmerman's suspicions. While that much of the issue wasn't illegal (for either of the parties) Trayvon then made one more mistake and that was to attack a stranger. That was criminal but even that wasn't enough for him. Once he had Zimmerman on the ground he continued to beat on the guy even though he was obviously not being comparably engaged and he kept it up while Goode told him to stop and he kept it up even though Zimmerman was trying to get away and he kept it up long enough for Zimmerman to fear for his life enough to draw a firearm and shoot.

There were several points where things could have stopped but it was Trayvon's decision not to stop them and he paid the price for being a thug. He isn't the first kid to go that route and, unfortunately, he won't be the last. That's a tragedy. There's a worse tragedy going on here, though. It's the tragedy that even after this there are still thousands upon thousands of people out there who are looking at the justice system as having failed here instead of looking at their own lives, their own communities and their own families and saying to themselves "I'm going to use this as an opportunity to teach my kid why it's a bad idea to play the fool and act the thug."
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Just curious, was that your opinion in the O.J. Simpson case? How about the Michael Jackson case?

Personally, as soon as a jury finds someone "not guilty" I am content that they are innocent. Why? Because I actually BELIEVE a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If the State fails to meet that burden, then the Defendant is innocent.

Strange though, most people seem to think they have a right to decide for themselves in the "court of public opinion." Go figure. :confused:
in the eyes of the law yes they were innocent. my feelings doesn't matter. i could not lawfully use my feeling of guilt against them. Zimmerman should be able to sue HP for those head lines they are declaring him not innocent there for guilty and that is slander
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
Yeesh - whatever really happened/didn't happen with the Zimmerman/Martin case is no where near as despicable as her.

Not having enough properly obtained evidence to convict someone doesn't mean they didn't **** up fifty ways from Sunday.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Oh my gawd... here... let me fix this for you...


the state presumes you're innocent until they are able to prove you are guilty, which they failed to do. Therefore, you never lost your innocence therefore you remain innocent, your innocence was never lost
Being innocent and being presumed innocent are entirely different things. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually a very crucial distinction.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,322
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

in the eyes of the law yes they were innocent. my feelings doesn't matter. i could not lawfully use my feeling of guilt against them. Zimmerman should be able to sue HP for those head lines they are declaring him not innocent there for guilty and that is slander

That sounds like a double standard. Millions of people have done exactly the same thing to both O.J. and M.J. They do it to Ms. Anthony as well. None of these "victims" could sue, any more than Zimmerman can, because as public figures they became targets of public "opinion." You've expressed your opinion negatively about others whose victories in court you disagreed with, why is this any different?
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
she was found not guilty there for innocence was never lost. it doesn't matter what we feel we cant lawfully use or feeling of guilt against her
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
she was found not guilty there for innocence was never lost. it doesn't matter what we feel we cant lawfully use or feeling of guilt against her
I think you're missing the point. They're implying he got away with murder. This is not rocket science.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Just curious, was that your opinion in the O.J. Simpson case? How about the Michael Jackson case?

Personally, as soon as a jury finds someone "not guilty" I am content that they are innocent. Why? Because I actually BELIEVE a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If the State fails to meet that burden, then the Defendant is innocent.

Strange though, most people seem to think they have a right to decide for themselves in the "court of public opinion." Go figure. :confused:
that wasn't an opinion piece that was labeled as news and when you label something as news and you willfully give false information and if you prove it was to defame your character then it is defamation of character and slander
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
she was found not guilty there for innocence was never lost. it doesn't matter what we feel we cant lawfully use or feeling of guilt against her
You're not making any effort to understand the legal differences, just as you're not making an effort to use the apostrophe key when you type. :shrug: It's a simple thing, read legislation/laws and you might get it.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,904
Reaction score
3,584
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
-----------

Most definitely.
Her daughter died while in her care.
The state couldn't prove murder, so she's officially "not guilty" of murder.
Like the aforementioned OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson she will always be officially "not guilty".
In the court of public opinion, they are "not innocent".
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Just curious, was that your opinion in the O.J. Simpson case? How about the Michael Jackson case?

Personally, as soon as a jury finds someone "not guilty" I am content that they are innocent. Why? Because I actually BELIEVE a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If the State fails to meet that burden, then the Defendant is innocent.

Strange though, most people seem to think they have a right to decide for themselves in the "court of public opinion." Go figure. :confused:
YIKES! You are NOT innocent until proven guilty. You are PRESUMED innocent.... If guilt is not proven, the PRESUMPTION stands... that does not mean you are innocent.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think you're missing the point. They're implying he got away with murder. This is not rocket science.
if it was an opinion peace you can do just that all you want, but that was put forth as news. it is why in the news you cant call someone a murder before he is convicted of murder they have to call you a suspect
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You're not making any effort to understand the legal differences, just as you're not making an effort to use the apostrophe key when you type. :shrug: It's a simple thing, read legislation/laws and you might get it.
your not making any effort to understand it doesn't matter what i, you, or anyone else feels about the verdict. The press by reporting it as news that Zimmerman not being innocent of murder you there for implying guilt of murder and you cant do that, that is slander and defamation of character and that is irresponsible reporting

And the way the American public feels about the press he can easily win that law
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

in the eyes of the law yes they were innocent. my feelings doesn't matter. i could not lawfully use my feeling of guilt against them. Zimmerman should be able to sue HP for those head lines they are declaring him not innocent there for guilty and that is slander
Assuming this is the article, I don't see anything slanderous. There is a distinction between being found not guilty and being innocent. The way I read it is that HuffPo is saying that just because the verdict is not guilty does not necessarily mean he is innocent, with a compelling title to draw more page views. The article's content corroborates this, not implying that Zimmerman is guilty, but saying that it is impossible to know what happened on that night.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,322
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Juries don't find people "innocent." They find people "not guilty." There actually is a difference. He is innocent in terms of law for that reason. That doesn't mean in fact he is innocent, though I am certain he is myself.
Anyway, presumed innocent is simply procedural. No one in this case is "innocent". According to christians, no one is innocent. The only way GZ could be innocent, was if he wasn't involved at all. Not guilty is a correct and accurate term.
Yeesh - whatever really happened/didn't happen with the Zimmerman/Martin case is no where near as despicable as her. Not having enough properly obtained evidence to convict someone doesn't mean they didn't **** up fifty ways from Sunday.
Oh my gawd... here... let me fix this for you...Being innocent and being presumed innocent are entirely different things. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually a very crucial distinction.
Forgive me, but I find these kinds of responses amazing. Why do so many people think like this?

None of you were present at the time of any of the alleged events, and have only second or third hand reports that you sift through based upon your own prejudices and preconceived notions.

Then the media helps by making a circus of it, with full play-by-play commentary which you check periodically, then pretend to be part of the jury. Viola! Whatever YOU think, regardless of the actual verdict, becomes the "correct judgment."

The purpose of a trial is to give the State (our representatives in such matters) a chance to prove what we only suspect. This is done before a select panel of “peers” who are responsible for sifting through the evidence and deciding on behalf of the rest of us.

This is a costly, frightening thing for any innocent defendant to go through. He is already facing public suspicions that he MUST have done something or he would not be there in the first place. Truthfully, the system is set up so that even those innocent of criminal charges are often convicted. We only learn later, after years of incarceration, or even after execution, the system screwed up.

It seems to me that we make our justice system into a farce when we elect to condemn anyone who has gone through the process and been found not guilty. They’ve gone through a trial, they have not been proven guilty, ergo until we learn otherwise we are supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their innocence.

That's why I jumped on the OP's case, asking about OJ and MJ...everyone thinks they have a right to judge a defendant, it only seems to be a problem when they think the jury made the "right' decision and others don't agree.
 
Top Bottom