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.
