Guilty but not Innocent WTF [W:64]

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

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.

I really don't give a crap about MJ, OJ, TMJ, or GZJ... And yes... I have a right to my opinion and I can judge whoever I want, whatever way I want, by whatever value system I want.

I am speaking ONLY of legal distinctions. There is a MASSIVE difference between innocent until proven and PRESUMED innocent... and yes... it truly matters. On this note, the reason "people think like this" is that they have solid foundations in general legal understanding (not emotionally tied to any case) to make that distinction.

 

[trfjr]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

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.

there is no distinction in the eyes of the law innocence was never lost (innocent till proven guilty) Zimmerman maintained his innocence only way innocence can be lost is with a guilty verdict HP declared not innocent and that is slander

 

[Anagram]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

there is no distinction in the eyes of the law innocence was never lost (innocent till proven guilty) Zimmerman maintained his innocence only way innocence can be lost is with a guilty verdict HP declared not innocent and that is slander

They weren't talking about the eyes of the law. Somebody being found not guilty does not mean that he or she did not in fact commit the crime. I believe that is the point the Huffington Post was trying to make, with an eye-catching title.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

there is no distinction in the eyes of the law innocence was never lost (innocent till proven guilty) Zimmerman maintained his innocence only way innocence can be lost is with a guilty verdict HP declared not innocent and that is slander

STOP! Seriously... you are shouting your ignorance from the mountain...

it's PRESUMED innocent. Why this matters...

All this means... and I do mean, this ONLY means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to present evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

If reasonable doubt remains, whether because of innocence or because of inept and incompetent prosecution results in acquittal... not proof of innocence.

 

[radioman]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

.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.

-----------------
Well, yes....you are correct, Captain Obvious.
People will look at a "not guilty" Casey Anthony and her weird lying, and SPECULATE that she was responsible for her daughter's fate.
Human nature.
BTW, do you think the "not guilty" OJ killed his ex-wife?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

I really don't give a crap about MJ, OJ, TMJ, or GZJ... And yes... I have a right to my opinion and I can judge whoever I want, whatever way I want, by whatever value system I want.

I am speaking ONLY of legal distinctions. There is a MASSIVE difference between innocent until proven and PRESUMED innocent... and yes... it truly matters. On this note, the reason "people think like this" is that they have solid foundations in general legal understanding (not emotionally tied to any case) to make that distinction.

I'm a lawyer you (expletive deleted)! I've represented criminal defendants while serving as a public defender. I am well-aware that just because you are found not guilty in a court of law that does not certify that you are innocent. I said in my original post:

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.

I was expressing personal belief. It’s why I did not follow the case. It’s why in most of the threads on this subject where I participated I insisted the JURY would decide the issue and that would be good enough for me.

And I ALSO have a right to an opinion on how asinine it is for other people who are NOT on the jury to judge a defendant.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

-----------------
Well, yes....you are correct, Captain Obvious.
People will look at a "not guilty" Casey Anthony and her weird lying, and SPECULATE that she was responsible for her daughter's fate.
Human nature.
BTW, do you think the "not guilty" OJ killed his ex-wife?

I have no idea whether he killed his wife or not. I wasn't there when it happened. I wasn't on the jury sifting evidence either. I also avoided "watching" it on Court TV because that's a public circus. I'm content to accept that jury's decision. Since they decided he was not guilty, as far as I am concerned he is innocent. Same with Casey Anthony. I did not follow the case for similar reasons, and I'm content with the decision of the jury for similar reasons.

 

[Rainman05]

While I am certain that the specific story was written by semi-educated retards, they are actually right.

Juries find people NOT GUILTY of the crime they are faced with.
In order for a person to be found INNOCENT, the judge has to sign some form of paper that says that the guy is innocent. Otherwise, he is just not guilty of the crime he is accused.

Here, the judge would never say that zimmerman is innocent. He isn't. Zimmerman is a murderer by moral standards, just not by legal ones. he is just NOT GUILTY of a criminal charge because he did it in self-defense.

To call zimmerman innocent would be kind of stupid. He's just not a criminal murderer, just a murderer who killed someone to save his life.

 

[windowdressing]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

I have no idea whether he killed his wife or not. I wasn't there when it happened. I wasn't on the jury sifting evidence either. I also avoided "watching" it on Court TV because that's a public circus. I'm content to accept that jury's decision. Since they decided he was not guilty, as far as I am concerned he is innocent. Same with Casey Anthony. I did not follow the case for similar reasons, and I'm content with the decision of the jury for similar reasons.

at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is that he was found not guilty ... I served on one jury and we found a guy not guilty, but everyone of us "had a feeling" he may have done what he was accused of doing or something like it, but we had reasonable doubt and followed the judge's instructions to the "t" and, consequently, had to find not guilty. From what I saw and read, I don't see how the jury let him off scot free, but I have to trust that they were responsible and did the right thing ...

But I have a question, especially since you're an attorney ... I got an e-mail from Move-On this morning asking me to sign a petition (that the NAACP supports) that will go to Eric Holder ... here it is ... Do you think this will go anywhere?

The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.

The most fundamental of civil rights—the right to life—was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.

Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today. Thank you.

 

[trfjr]

While I am certain that the specific story was written by semi-educated retards, they are actually right.

Juries find people NOT GUILTY of the crime they are faced with.
In order for a person to be found INNOCENT, the judge has to sign some form of paper that says that the guy is innocent. Otherwise, he is just not guilty of the crime he is accused.

Here, the judge would never say that zimmerman is innocent. He isn't. Zimmerman is a murderer by moral standards, just not by legal ones. he is just NOT GUILTY of a criminal charge because he did it in self-defense.

To call zimmerman innocent would be kind of stupid. He's just not a criminal murderer, just a murderer who killed someone to save his life.

the jury finds you not guilty instead of innocent because you are already innocent you remained innocent until the verdict there for they cant give you something you already have and never lost

 

[trfjr]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is that he was found not guilty ... I served on one jury and we found a guy not guilty, but everyone of us "had a feeling" he may have done what he was accused of doing or something like it, but we had reasonable doubt and followed the judge's instructions to the "t" and, consequently, had to find not guilty. From what I saw and read, I don't see how the jury let him off scot free, but I have to trust that they were responsible and did the right thing ...

But I have a question, especially since you're an attorney ... I got an e-mail from Move-On this morning asking me to sign a petition (that the NAACP supports) that will go to Eric Holder ... here it is ... Do you think this will go anywhere?

The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.

The most fundamental of civil rights—the right to life—was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.

Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today. Thank you.

if it does the democrats will lose the white vote. the NAACP is showing they want revenge and not justice. Zimmerman won the case because he proved self defense nothing up to the point of the fight matters. unless something illegal was done that perpetrated the fight. Zimmerman could have called Martin every racist thing in the book that isn't illegal even under civil rights laws it can be proven he was following for the only reason he was black that is not illegal even under civil rights laws
The feds cant ignore the verdict of not guilty by means of self defense self defense trumps all other charges

 

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

I'm a lawyer you (expletive deleted)! I've represented criminal defendants while serving as a public defender. I am well-aware that just because you are found not guilty in a court of law that does not certify that you are innocent. I said in my original post:



I was expressing personal belief. It’s why I did not follow the case. It’s why in most of the threads on this subject where I participated I insisted the JURY would decide the issue and that would be good enough for me.

And I ALSO have a right to an opinion on how asinine it is for other people who are NOT on the jury to judge a defendant.

It's really not that asinine... Often times the public has access to information the jurors don't. And personally I am as entitled to my opinion as you are yours.

As for having a law degree... as with any degree, it's no guarantee of competence, only perseverance. That said, I know nothing of you or your competence. However, last night... very very late... I had had it with so many claiming not guilty was the same as innocent. Tons of guilty people get off on technicalities, due to prosecutor incompetence, etc. That does not make them innocent.

You asked why people think like that... I told you... you didn't like it, but does not change the fact that there is a MASSIVE distinction between presumption of innocence and factually innocent. The fact that a lawyer doesn't understand that is more than a little disconcerting.

 

[sangha]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Zimmerman plead "Not guilty" to the charges against him. If he had plead "Innocent" it would have meant that he had not shot Martin.

He did shoot Martin. He is not innocent, nor is he guilty.

 

[windowdressing]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

if it does the democrats will lose the white vote. the NAACP is showing they want revenge and not justice. Zimmerman won the case because he proved self defense nothing up to the point of the fight matters. unless something illegal was done that perpetrated the fight. Zimmerman could have called Martin every racist thing in the book that isn't illegal even under civil rights laws it can be proven he was following for the only reason he was black that is not illegal even under civil rights laws
The feds cant ignore the verdict of not guilty by means of self defense self defense trumps all other charges

Lose the white vote? You're kidding, right? Romney got almost 60% of the white vote ... I don't think this will matter at all, and you seem to have this idea that the overwhelming number of whites agree with you on the case ... it might not even be most ... believe it or not, there are many, many whites who see the racism in this country that you don't see ... Also, if the DOJ goes after DZ on civil rights charges, over 90% of the white population will not know or care ...

I don't think they'll do it, principally for political reasons, but the DOJ could charge DZ with violating Martin's civil rights, despite the not guilty verdict in the criminal trial ... and remember, it's a different burden of proof -- preponderance of the evidence (?) I believe ... easier to convict ...

 

[digsbe]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Zimmerman plead "Not guilty" to the charges against him. If he had plead "Innocent" it would have meant that he had not shot Martin.

He did shoot Martin. He is not innocent, nor is he guilty.

What is he not innocent of? It's no lie that he shot Trayvon, but if done in self defense that is innocent.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Scotland retains a third option in their criminal law. "Not Proven". (We think you did it, but there's not enough evidence, so not guilty this time, but don't do it again!)

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Just got a phone call from a friend:

The turd-like newspaper New York Times, the quotidian Bible of the Black Racist Enabling DEM Gay/Lib scum had this on their Front Page:

A crowd of the Teen age Thug Trayvon Martin Female Sympathizers cuddling their infants in their arms purportedly showing the extent the emotional anguish these idiots are going thru with bemoaning the just verdict of Z's NOT GUILTY verdict !!!

I puked when I heard that........and, I am still puking.


I wonder how many times, if ever, these same idiots turned out in the streets cuddling their babes in their ams to bemoan the MONTHLY THOUSANDS of the TEEN AGE Black/Black, and Black/Non Black crimes across the Nation ?!?!?

 

[trfjr]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Scotland retains a third option in their criminal law. "Not Proven". (We think you did it, but there's not enough evidence, so not guilty this time, but don't do it again!)

that is unjust that is a scalett letter it is worse the being found guilty atleast with being found guilty and doing your time you paid your debt to society. with not proven verdict for the rest of your life you will still be trying to prove your innocence

 

[sangha]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What is he not innocent of? It's no lie that he shot Trayvon, but if done in self defense that is innocent.

He is not innocent of killing Martin. Under the law, he is not innocent.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

He is not innocent of killing Martin. Under the law, he is not innocent.

Sangha, are you quoting some law created by the Black Racist Enabling DEM Lib/Gay turds ?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

that is unjust that is a scalett letter it is worse the being found guilty atleast with being found guilty and doing your time you paid your debt to society. with not proven verdict for the rest of your life you will still be trying to prove your innocence

It's an aquittal verdict, just like "Not Guilty". You're not necessarily innocent, just not guilty of what you were accused of.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Sangha, are you quoting some law created by the Black Racist Enabling DEM Lib/Gay turds ?

Moderator's Warning:

Cease your baiting or there will be further consequences.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

...But I have a question, especially since you're an attorney ... I got an e-mail from Move-On this morning asking me to sign a petition (that the NAACP supports) that will go to Eric Holder ... here it is ... Do you think this will go anywhere?

The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.

The most fundamental of civil rights—the right to life—was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.

Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today. Thank you.

Well, this seems more like a "political history" question than a legal one. However, yes it is possible for the Federal government to prosecute a case if there is a reason to believe a civil rights violation has occurred.

Under Program 16.109 the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is funded to undertake prosecution in cases “of national significance” to (among other things) reduce violent activity by private citizens (including organized hate groups) against others because of their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or sex.

There are a series of sections in Federal law where such action is authorized;18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247, 248, 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, 1592; 1594; 42 U.S.C. 3631. This would fall under an attempt to use 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

It was most used during the Civil Rights Era when all-white juries acquitted obvious perpetrators or state officials refused to prosecute racial killings. Examples include Byron de la Beckwith, Sam Bowers, and Edgar Ray Killen (all originally released due to hung jury decisions).

However, whether or not the Feds will act on this petition is problematic. The Zimmerman case had a jury of six women, 5 white and one who might be latin(?), who were required to reach unanimous agreement. I suppose anything is possible, but I am not certain the Justice Department would intervene. They didn’t in the Amadou Diallo case in NYC back in 2000, after four police were acquitted of his alleged murder. Clinton was President at the time.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

It's really not that asinine... Often times the public has access to information the jurors don't. And personally I am as entitled to my opinion as you are yours.

REALLY?? You really think thats true? I'm curious now. Please give me an example of information available at the time of a trial that a jury did not have access to but YOU and the rest of the oggling public did.

As for having a law degree... as with any degree, it's no guarantee of competence, only perseverance. That said, I know nothing of you or your competence. However, last night... very very late... I had had it with so many claiming not guilty was the same as innocent. Tons of guilty people get off on technicalities, due to prosecutor incompetence, etc. That does not make them innocent.

Already addressed, no need to do so again.

You asked why people think like that... I told you... you didn't like it, but does not change the fact that there is a MASSIVE distinction between presumption of innocence and factually innocent. The fact that a lawyer doesn't understand that is more than a little disconcerting.

Hmmm, all I need to understand is that a person went through a trial and was determined by a jury of his peers to be not guilty. Unless new evidence comes to light that shows he was guilty, or he is stupid enough to write a "Tell-All" book to profit from his luck, I am content to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his innocence.

There are just too many examples of groups jumping to conclusions based on personal prejudices and pre-conceived notions leading to unwarranted emotional (often violent) reactions (as in this Zimmerman case) that serve to emphasize my position. The "massive distinction" you claim in my understanding of the law is one without a real difference.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

...But I have a question, especially since you're an attorney ... I got an e-mail from Move-On this morning asking me to sign a petition (that the NAACP supports) that will go to Eric Holder ... here it is ... Do you think this will go anywhere?

As a supplement to my prior response, here is your answer:

""I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken," Obama said in a written statement released by the White House."

The Justice Department will follow the lead of the President.