• 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!

Officer Nero Found Innocent.

Fenton said:
Yes !! :applaud :applaud
Click to expand...

Ditto!

Excon said:
I hope the same happens for all the remaining Officers.
Click to expand...

So do I.

Mason66 said:
The protest crowds are already gathering.

Can this really be considered a racial case since three of the six officers are black and the judge that is deciding the cases is also black?

I think the case changes from black against white to public against cops.
Click to expand...

Yep.

CanadaJohn said:
Not to nit pick, but not guilty is the proper legal term - he wasn't "found innocent".

That said, it was the only logical outcome of a case that was politically motivated and prosecuted. The politics in the case have caused Baltimore to turn into the lawless murder capital of America as police refuse to be set up again by a leadership that seems powerless to place blame where it squarely belongs.

Since President Obama is in Asia now, perhaps he will avoid doing his usual and roiling racial tensions with some idiotic statement about this verdict.
Click to expand...

We can only hope the Putz in Chief, S'sTFU!
 
Some BLM activist claimed that the lack of a jury filled with " Community " members meant that the trial was a farce


So unless the Jury is filled with people who regardless of the evidence are going to return a guilty verdict the trials not fair
 
CanadaJohn said:
Have to wait until all the stores close so they can use their five finger discount for a little after hours shopping.

Nothing spells civil rights march like looting and pillaging.
Click to expand...

It took 6+ hours for the Rodney King riots to get cranked up.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Yes, but a court does not find or prove innocence. It's not their role.
Click to expand...

If not convicted then they are innocent. That's the way our system works. Lots of people like to claim that a "not guilty verdict" is not the same as being found innocent but here in the US, if you're not found guilty, then you're innocent. Because your are always innocent until proven guilty. IMO stating that a "not guilty verdict is not the same as being innocent" is only said by those that disagree with a verdict.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Officer Nero of the Baltimore Police was just found innocent of the charges.

Great news!


Freddie Gray Arresting Officer Nero Found Not Guilty On All Charges « CBS Baltimore
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about this case but its important to note that there is a huge difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent. That a jury was unable to find someone 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same as them finding a defendant innocent. Think OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony.
 
Mason66 said:
The protest crowds are already gathering.

Can this really be considered a racial case since three of the six officers are black and the judge that is deciding the cases is also black?

I think the case changes from black against white to public against cops.
Click to expand...

As we discovered with Zimmerman - they are actually white-black.

Narrative > Reality
 
Sherman123 said:
I don't know anything about this case but its important to note that there is a huge difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent. That a jury was unable to find someone 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same as them finding a defendant innocent. Think OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony.
Click to expand...

In this instance, there was no jury, just the judge. In our system, we are innocent until proven guilty - therefore, a not guilty verdict is a statement that the person is innocent of criminal guilt, not something other than innocent, since innocence is where they began in the court process (again, innocent until proven guilty). Even in OJ's trial, which is why when he was found innocent of criminal guilt, the families of the victims sued him for civil liability and won.
 
Fenton said:
Some BLM activist claimed that the lack of a jury filled with " Community " members meant that the trial was a farce


So unless the Jury is filled with people who regardless of the evidence are going to return a guilty verdict the trials not fair
Click to expand...

Do they not consider the black judge as one of their community?
 
Mason66 said:
Do they not consider the black judge as one of their community?
Click to expand...

In the realm of the Social Justice Warrior race, gender and sexual identity only matter if you agree with the mob.
 
Nice to see this trumped-up BLM nonsense against the police is getting squashed at every turn.

Shame on Obama for fanning these make believe flames.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If not convicted then they are innocent. That's the way our system works. Lots of people like to claim that a "not guilty verdict" is not the same as being found innocent but here in the US, if you're not found guilty, then you're innocent. Because your are always innocent until proven guilty. IMO stating that a "not guilty verdict is not the same as being innocent" is only said by those that disagree with a verdict.
Click to expand...

I disagree - many guilty people are found not guilty during a trial - it's why legal scholars like to say it's better for a guilty person to walk free than for an innocent person to be found guilty. The most obvious case is that of OJ Simpson. Personally, I felt the criminal trial was a farce and there was sufficient grounds to vote not guilty, but it also seemed pretty clear that he was guilty and the vast majority of people who know the details of the case and the trial would never say he was found innocent or proven innocent based on that trial.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I disagree - many guilty people are found not guilty during a trial - it's why legal scholars like to say it's better for a guilty person to walk free than for an innocent person to be found guilty. The most obvious case is that of OJ Simpson. Personally, I felt the criminal trial was a farce and there was sufficient grounds to vote not guilty, but it also seemed pretty clear that he was guilty and the vast majority of people who know the details of the case and the trial would never say he was found innocent or proven innocent based on that trial.
Click to expand...

I'm the eyes of the law you're innocent, or guilty and you're only guilty of you're proven to be guilty. Otherwise, you're innocent.
 
Mason66 said:
Do they not consider the black judge as one of their community?
Click to expand...

If he didn't find Officer Nero guilty they obviously dont consider him to be part of their community
 
Fenton said:
If he didn't find Officer Nero guilty they obviously dont consider him to be part of their community
Click to expand...

I was reading through the diary on this over at DailyKos and the few folks that are talking about "rule of law" and such are being skewered. It's rather fascinating since even Gray's attorney is OK with the decision.
 
Lutherf said:
I was reading through the diary on this over at DailyKos and the few folks that are talking about "rule of law" and such are being skewered. It's rather fascinating since even Gray's attorney is OK with the decision.
Click to expand...

Indulging in some Schadenfreude? :lol:
 
jmotivator said:
Indulging in some Schadenfreude? :lol:
Click to expand...

It keeps me grounded. Every time I think I might be going overboard in my beliefs I just need to read some of that and it brings me right back.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I disagree - many guilty people are found not guilty during a trial - it's why legal scholars like to say it's better for a guilty person to walk free than for an innocent person to be found guilty. The most obvious case is that of OJ Simpson. Personally, I felt the criminal trial was a farce and there was sufficient grounds to vote not guilty, but it also seemed pretty clear that he was guilty and the vast majority of people who know the details of the case and the trial would never say he was found innocent or proven innocent based on that trial.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the eyes of the public, and the eyes of the law. Frankly we don't KNOW that OJ is guilty. We assume that he is. Just like many assume that Zimmerman is guilty. As far as the law is concerned though they are not guilty. And according to the law you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore without a conviction, the law MUST assume that you are innocent. If it didn't work that way then you could be tried as many times as people wanted until they got a conviction. As far as the law is concerned its a black and white issue.

However, the eyes of the public is always fluid. It is the eyes of the public that assumes guilt even if there's a not guilty verdict. The eyes of the public never see everything, but it sure likes to think that it does. ;) Due to that the eyes of the public is not 20/20 vision.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Have to wait until all the stores close so they can use their five finger discount for a little after hours shopping.

Nothing spells civil rights march like looting and pillaging.
Click to expand...

It's not "looting".
It's "unauthorized shopping". :)
 
Kal'Stang said:
There's a difference between the eyes of the public, and the eyes of the law. Frankly we don't KNOW that OJ is guilty. We assume that he is. Just like many assume that Zimmerman is guilty. As far as the law is concerned though they are not guilty. And according to the law you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore without a conviction, the law MUST assume that you are innocent. If it didn't work that way then you could be tried as many times as people wanted until they got a conviction. As far as the law is concerned its a black and white issue.

However, the eyes of the public is always fluid. It is the eyes of the public that assumes guilt even if there's a not guilty verdict. The eyes of the public never see everything, but it sure likes to think that it does. ;) Due to that the eyes of the public is not 20/20 vision.
Click to expand...

We can agree - however, my point was that the title of the thread says the officer was "found innocent" and I said that was technically wrong, he was found not guilty - courts and juries do not consider or rule on innocence, just on guilt as per the law.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Nobody is found innocent, just "Not guilty".
Click to expand...


Guilt or innocence isn't determined through baseless accusations from a corrupt prosecutor who's bending to the will of a violent mob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom