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 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.
the reason juries find you not guilty because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have
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?
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?
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?
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 slanderJust 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.
Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
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
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
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
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 slanderJust 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.
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
-----------Is Casey Anthony "not innocent"?
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.
I think you're missing the point. They're implying he got away with murder. This is not rocket science.
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 reportingYou'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.
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?