• 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.

Is there anything in Baltimore left to burn?
 
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...

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

Narrative > Reality
Click to expand...

Ironically, this (narrative > reality) is exactly why people are cheering this result- normally we doubt the part where the crime was actually committed by the person on trial, but we know these police were involved, and yet so many are eager to conclude their innocence.
 
Mason66 said:
Do they not consider the black judge as one of their community?
Click to expand...

Not when he's seen as clearing someone who murdered a member of their community as innocent of all wrongdoing.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

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...

Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

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.
 
It seems realitivly quite so far. Let's up Rev. Al never shows up to help fan the flames of hate by chanting
"No Justice, No Peace, Let's go Loot T.V.'s" or whatever he says.
 
Absentglare said:
Not when he's seen as clearing someone who murdered a member of their community as innocent of all wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

So he is not allowed to apply the law, he just has to do what they think is right.

I think it is better he is not part of their community, and I am sure he would think the same.
 
Absentglare said:
Not when he's seen as clearing someone who murdered a member of their community as innocent of all wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Nero wasn't charged with murder. Y'all need to slow down. This isn't the Soviet Union.
 
danarhea said:
What doesn't make sense is why he was charged in the first place, since another officer admitted making the arrest, and still another officer admitted that it was his responsibility to secure Gray with a seat belt. What does make sense is that this officer was acquitted.
Click to expand...

It's a kangaroo court. Charging him didn't have anything to do with the spirit of the law. The, "pigs at the table", decided he should be charged with a crime, so they charged him with a crime.
 
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...

technically not true.

Officer Nero enjoys a presumption of innocence that ONLY dissipates upon a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to do that results in a NOT GUILTY verdict not an INNOCENT verdict and when the NG verdict is read, Officer Nero's presumption of innocence remains.
 
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?
 
TurtleDude said:
technically not true.

Officer Nero enjoys a presumption of innocence that ONLY dissipates upon a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to do that results in a NOT GUILTY verdict not an INNOCENT verdict and when the NG verdict is read, Officer Nero's presumption of innocence remains.
Click to expand...
And this is the short & succinct version of my post #65.

Thank you.
 
Chomsky said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am going to assume you meant stumbling block here.
 
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...

And the Mayor is black.
 
Mason66 said:
So he is not allowed to apply the law, he just has to do what they think is right.

I think it is better he is not part of their community, and I am sure he would think the same.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do anything.

Members of the community are free to disagree with a court ruling. Insulting and demeaning them may serve to play into a potential victim mythology, and i find it hard to see how it can he of value.
 
apdst said:
Nero wasn't charged with murder. Y'all need to slow down. This isn't the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom