• 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!

Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say

shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, in America everyone is innocent until proven guilty. So yes, Wilson is innocent of any wrongdoing.
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh... I see, you won't call him innocent until a full bore trial has been held and found "Not guilty" right?
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, it does = innocent.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who isn't convicted is found not guilty.
Click to expand...

And thus, legally speaking, they are PRESUMED to be innocent.

The default presumption, legally speaking, is that people are innocent. It's incumbant upon the state to prove the guilt, to the standards required under the law, which includes everything from the criteria to justify a search all the way up to the requirements for a guilty verdict.

Now you can personally feel however you want about any given case. But legally speaking, Darren Wilson is innocent. He's not been FOUND innocent or PROVEN innocent, but he is by default presumed to be innocent legally speaking and continues to be as the government has not been able to meet the standards to bring him before a court of law and find him guilty of a crime.
 
Cephus said:
Which is entirely irrelevant since the justice system doesn't find anyone innocent, they just find them not guilty. Darren Wilson is not guilty.
Click to expand...

This is because the justice system makes no attempts to prove innocent or not. It simply attempts to prove guilt.

There's no need to find that someone is "innocent" because that's the default assumption that is presumed unless a "guilty" verdict is reached.

If you can't prove their guilty, then they're not guilty. If they're not guilty, then the presumption of innocent remains. Thus someone is FOUND to be not gulity, and thus legally speaking remain innocent.
 
shrubnose said:
I might call him not guilty if he's never convicted. :roll:
Click to expand...
So you admit then you are completely biased on this matter, ignore the evidence, testimony and other legal processes (grand jury) and will forever see this man as guilty. Basically we can ignore your view on Darren Wilson as its merely based on pure hate.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is because the justice system makes no attempts to prove innocent or not. It simply attempts to prove guilt.

There's no need to find that someone is "innocent" because that's the default assumption that is presumed unless a "guilty" verdict is reached.

If you can't prove their guilty, then they're not guilty. If they're not guilty, then the presumption of innocent remains. Thus someone is FOUND to be not gulity, and thus legally speaking remain innocent.
Click to expand...

But that's not the case. Being found not guilty has nothing to do with being factually innocent. It just means that there was insufficient evidence, the lawyers were incompetent or the jury was too stupid to bring a guilty verdict. A jury found OJ Simpson not guilty of murder, that doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that the jury didn't find the evidence compelling, mostly because they were all incompetent idiots. A presumption of innocence and actual innocence are often very different things.

Today, however, and this seems to be primarily among liberals, they're so insistent on achieving "social justice" that they keep retrying the person for different things, each with a lesser burden of proof, until the can con a jury into finding the way they want.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, it sure as hell doesn't = guilty. :roll:
 
MrVicchio said:
So you admit then you are completely biased on this matter, ignore the evidence, testimony and other legal processes (grand jury) and will forever see this man as guilty.
Basically we can ignore your view on Darren Wilson as its merely based on pure hate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You can believe whatever you want to believe, we don't have thought police. :roll:
 
The question for the DOJ was not whether his shooting Brown was legal or illegal. Rather, it was whether it was a civil rights violation as defined in federal law. Even if it opinion of the DOJ was that the shooting was murder, that would NOT make a federal case for criminal civil rights violation.
 
Also false in this thread is suggesting the officer has been found not guilty. There's been no verdict whatsoever. There is no statute of limitations on murder either. So at no time is it accurate to claim he was found "not guilty" or found innocent.

A grand jury no-billing someone does NOT create double jeopardy. Technically, this can hang over the Officer's head the rest of his life because there has been no verdict.
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

It sure as hell doesn't mean guilty either... If a cop who defends himself against a violent attacker is punished in any way for doing so, that would be miscarriage of justice on a monumental scale and an embarrassment to everything this country stands for... or used to stand for,
 
Ockham said:
Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say - CNN.com

Apparently the civil rights case is closing on the Ferguson outrage of Wilson's shooting of Brown. That the DoJ is not pursuing this is to me... surprising. Granted it's very difficult to prove firstly, and second there has to be all sorts of qualifying events that - according to reports - do not seem to be present for a civil rights prosecution to move forward.

First the grand jury acquitted Wilson of any wrong doing, now the Feds are saying a civil rights prosecution is not going to happen. That however doesn't preclude a wrongful death suit to be filed against Wilson, which has a much lower level of qualification to find fault. That may be the next shoe to drop.
Click to expand...

Nor should there be any charges.
 
This was not murder, nor civil rights violation...Next it'll be no civil liability found either...So, all we have was an opportunity for looting, and mayhem....Well, that was fun...now we can move on.
 
Do remember that to MSNBC and Sharpton the opposite applies.

Indeed every white male who is accused of racism must be presumed guilty immediately and despite any evidence must be found guilty or there will be riots.
 
ataturk said:
Do remember that to MSNBC and Sharpton the opposite applies.

Indeed every white male who is accused of racism must be presumed guilty immediately and despite any evidence must be found guilty or there will be riots.
Click to expand...

And there in lies my beef. Seemingly whenever anyone disagrees with someone, the immediate cry of racism is raised to silence any opposition, regardless of the legitimacy of the policy disagreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom