Officer Nero Found Innocent.

[apdst]

That doesn't matter. My belief is governed by my perception. All they need is the perception that he's a murderer to believe it. Unfortunately, i cannot say for certain that protestors are always well-informed of the topics they protest.

Obviously, perception wasn't all they needed.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm blown away by the number in this thread that are struggling to understand courts do not find or declare 'innocence'! :doh

I believe the stumbling black here is the understanding of 'presumptive innocence'. When we 'presume', we 'believe' or 'accept' without knowing. There is a distinct difference 'presumed', and 'known', 'proven', 'ascertained', 'found', etc.

So one arrives at criminal court presumed innocent, but not known. They then are found 'guilty' or 'not guilty', but never found 'innocent'. If they are found 'not guilty' they leave as the came: 'presumed innocent' (but as before, not 'known innocent'). The court does not and cannot determine innocence' or a 'finding of innocence'. The best that can be done is the native presumption, which of course is simply a presumption and not a known fact or determination, and indeed the person may NOT be innocent!

Please tell me this makes sense?

To be fair, i think Kal's statement (emphasis mine) has a point :

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.

Well we can apply this to other cases; i could see myself arguing that being found not guilty constitutes the exoneration of a criminal accusation.

In this case, i think the legal definition of innocence is a bit of a technicality.

Myself ? I don't understand why the crosshairs were placed on six different cops. I can see a bad apple or two, but six ? It just doesn't feel likely. I'd guess that one or maybe two cops made serious errors in judgement and i'm thinking this wasn't one of them. Still, the court's verdict, itself, isn't my evidence there.

 

[Chomsky]

To be fair, i think Kal's statement (emphasis mine) has a point :



Well we can apply this to other cases; i could see myself arguing that being found not guilty constitutes the exoneration of a criminal accusation.

In this case, i think the legal definition of innocence is a bit of a technicality.

Myself ? I don't understand why the crosshairs were placed on six different cops. I can see a bad apple or two, but six ? It just doesn't feel likely. I'd guess that one or maybe two cops made serious errors in judgement and i'm thinking this wasn't one of them. Still, the court's verdict, itself, isn't my evidence there.

The distinction between 'presumed innocence' and 'actual innocence' is not trivial.

One is a presumptive. The other is a determinate.

When one is found 'not guilty' it means sufficient evidence has not been presented to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing more.

And the lack of evidence can be for a plethora of reasons besides actual innocence.

So I'm sticking with the law here, and in my mind the distinction is definitive and material.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Being innocent

Being FOUND innocent

are two different things

The very nature of a presumption of innocence means a court case can't FIND a person to be innocent, because that's already the state their in until they're found guilty.

Which means that they are innocent if not found guilty.

I understand the difference between being innocent and being found innocent. I just don't agree that people assume that if one is found not guilty then "to hell with the system i'll call em guilty anyways!" It's a scapegoat for them that allows their mind to justify themselves when they continue to spew hateful stuff. Like this case shows. People use it for political points and nothing more.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, i really don't see it this way.

"Presumed innocent until found guilty" is meant to communicate that, from the perspective of the law, if we MUST make a presumption, that presumption is that the defendant is innocent unless we prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

However, even that simple description is flawed, after all, if the defendant is innocent, how can we justify imprisoning them for a trial in the meantime ?

But we can, of course, put a nail in the coffin of this usage with the case of OJ- if OJ was "proven innocent" than his criminal case should have served as "proof" that the civil case against him had no merit, but it is absolutely the case that he lost his civil case after being deemed "not guilty" in the criminal.

Said another way, being let off the hook for charges in a criminal case simply means that the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean that the defendant was innocent- it simply means that his guilt could not be proven. In the eyes of the law, for the intents and purposes relevant to the law, he is, effectively, innocent of that crime. However, anyone with eyes of their own is still free to have an opinion, and if we talk about "proof" that we can obtain from these proceedings, it is only that he was not found guilty.

Law suits require far less in the way of evidence and is more based on feelings and shaky evidence than anything else. Just because OJ was found not guilty and the law suit was won doesn't mean that OJ is actually guilty. It just means that enough emotionalism was used to make the judge/jury feel pity for them. I fully believe that if a person is found not guilty of a crime then they should be immune to any and all law suits regarding what they were accused of. To me that is double jeopardy which our Constitution is supposed to protect against.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The distinction between 'presumed innocence' and 'actual innocence' is not trivial.

One is a presumptive. The other is a determinate.

When one is found 'not guilty' it means sufficient evidence has not been presented to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing more.

And the lack of evidence can be for a plethora of reasons besides actual innocence.

So I'm sticking with the law here, and in my mind the distinction is definitive and material.

The problem with this is that with such an attitude then NO ONE is EVER actually innocent. And if no one is ever actually innocent then our justice system is a farce. Everyone should be in jail/prison because if they're not actually innocent then they are guilty.

 

[roguenuke]

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.

Or those who have been taught the law. I have no issue at all with the verdict. I generally support police action (which should be obvious on here), but he is right, a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as a verdict of "innocent".

 

[Anthony60]

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.

Well, in this case, it was clearly politically motivated from the start, these officers should never have been charged. So it's not like these guys might have been guilty, but there just wasn't enough to convict them, it's more like they were victims of an overzealous, corrupt prosecutor that was using this case to try and further her own political career. Her statement when these officers were charged made that clear. She should be removed.

 

[Chomsky]

The problem with this is that with such an attitude then NO ONE is EVER actually innocent. And if no one is ever actually innocent then our justice system is a farce. Everyone should be in jail/prison because if they're not actually innocent then they are guilty.

I think you're missing the point, here.

The system you're speaking of is the criminal justice system, and it determines if criminal guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's set-up this way for good reason. Have you considered it's harder to 'prove innocence', than to produce 'reasonable doubt' of criminality? There's a big difference, and the current system works in the best interest of the defendant under the guise of 'presumed innocence' and the requirement of the state to prove criminality, rather than requiring the defendant to prove innocence.

Placing the legal burden to 'prove innocence' would produce a much higher barred, more prejudiced, and more capricious system for the defendant.

Our legal system and the Constitution it abides are far from perfect, but it works much better than many others. Man-made systems of Justice are flawed by their nature.

 

[American]

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.

They're all Uncle Toms.

 

[American]

Or those who have been taught the law. I have no issue at all with the verdict. I generally support police action (which should be obvious on here), but he is right, a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as a verdict of "innocent".

I don't think there is a verdict of innocent is there?

 

[roguenuke]

I don't think there is a verdict of innocent is there?

Not in this country. But it does exist.