• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guilty but not Innocent WTF [W:64]

Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

The FBI looked into this case long before the trial, and found NOTHING to suggest this was a 'race' crime. So if the DOJ now brings any charges, it will show them to be even more of a joke and political tool than they are already known to be.

Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Arbo said:
The FBI looked into this case long before the trial, and found NOTHING to suggest this was a 'race' crime. So if the DOJ now brings any charges, it will show them to be even more of a joke and political tool than they are already known to be.
Click to expand...

Page back and check my comment in Post #50.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

trfjr said:
View attachment 67150337

whats this crap "Not Innocent"
Isn't one of our corner stones to our justice system Innocent till proven guilty. was he proven guilty? no so he was and remains innocent

I know we have freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility and the left wing media like MSNBC and Huffington post are acting irresponsible, criminally irresponsible, and they need to answer to somebody. you cant go around acting that irresponsible. i don't know what can be done but what ever can be needs to be

What can be done?
Click to expand...

Supposedly . . . used to be. Apparently some people believe that when it's a white person who claims self defense against a black person that it's guilty until proven innocent.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Arbo said:
Irrelevant to what I said.
Click to expand...

Completely relevant. The President states it's a done deal "The jury has reached a verdict," then the DOJ will not pursue a case.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

ChrisL said:
Supposedly . . . used to be. Apparently some people believe that when it's a white person who claims self defense against a black person that it's guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but in our criminal justice system it's more like "if you are on trial you must have done something wrong," i.e. guilty until proven innocent. Race is a factor depending on which side of the jury of public opinion one sits on.

It's why so many people act like criminal trials are farces of justice...IF the person found innocent has been determined guilty in the court of public opinion. This determination simply depends on ones personal prejudices and preconceived notions. (ex. Zimmerman or OJ Simpson)
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
Forgive me, but in our criminal justice system it's more like "if you are on trial you must have done something wrong," i.e. guilty until proven innocnet.

It's why so many people act like criminal trials are farces or justice...IF the person found innocent has been determined guilty in the court of public opinion. This determination simply depends on ones personal prejudices and preconceived notions. (ex. Zimmerman or OJ Simpson)
Click to expand...

Well that's not how it's supposed to be.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

ChrisL said:
Well that's not how it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

I agree whole-heartedly. It's why I don't follow publicized criminal trials. Also why, although I know that technically a person found "not guilty" is not necessarily innocent, I prefer to give the person the benefit of the doubt and also presume he is innocent.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
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.



Already addressed, no need to do so again.



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.
Click to expand...

I don't debate posters that run and tattle to the mods that he was called a mean name by a mean ol' bully, sorry. didn't even read your post.

You are now on ignore... ciao
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Occam's Razor said:
I don't debate posters that run and tattle to the mods that he was called a mean name by a mean ol' bully, sorry. didn't even read your post.

You are now on ignore... ciao
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You on some kind of hallucinogen??? I don't talk to mods unless they are involved in a debate with me. I haven't been here long enough to win powerful freinds and influence people.

In any case you don't have a response because you were incorrect in the first place. :peace
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
I agree whole-heartedly. It's why I don't follow publicized criminal trials. Also why, although I know that technically a person found "not guilty" is not necessarily innocent, I prefer to give the person the benefit of the doubt and also presume he is innocent.
Click to expand...

I always try my best. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
WTF are you talking about? You on some kind of hallucinogen??? I don't talk to mods unless they are involved with a debate with me. In any case you don't have a response because you were incorrect in the first place. :peace
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought the post was one of your more rational responses...
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Moderator's Warning:
Let's everyone simmer down.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

AlabamaPaul said:
Actually, I thought the post was one of your more rational responses...
Click to expand...

Well, I have to throw a rational comment in every now and again...it helps bolster my image of irrationality. :)

WooHOoo! I just noticed this is my 600th post! I am an "Educator." Thank you, thank you. I owe it all to eating my wheaties and studying hard. ;)
 
Last edited:
Neither of you are wrong. You're just using standard legal language, and Joko is explaining the ramifications of that language. The jury didn't prove he was innocent, they didn't judge him as innocent. Because he was declared not guilty, he is considered innocent in court as he was assumed before, but he was not proven to be innocent.



trfjr said:
the reason juries find you "not guilty" instead of "innocent" because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have

your the one who is the fool
Click to expand...
 
trfjr said:
the reason juries find you "not guilty" instead of "innocent" because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have

your the one who is the fool
Click to expand...

No, you are trying to convert a slogan about law into an all encompassing reality. Innocent until proven guilty means innocent in the eyes of the law. Doesn't mean that in fact the person is innocent at all. Though it my past and I'm not boasting, it was not rare that I was detained, questioned and even arrested a few times. No trials. No convictions. Does that mean in fact I was "innocent." Oh hell no. I had not only done what they were investigating, but sometimes far worse. Not guilty in law does not mean not guilty in fact.
 
SheWolf said:
Neither of you are wrong. You're just using standard legal language, and Joko is explaining the ramifications of that language. The jury didn't prove he was innocent, they didn't judge him as innocent. Because he was declared not guilty, he is considered innocent in court as he was assumed before, but he was not proven to be innocent.
Click to expand...

you cannot be proven "innocent" in our system because you are already presumed to be innocent UNTIL and only UNTIL the state proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. In some systems you are presumed guilty if the state charges you and thus if you are acquitted you indeed have been proven innocent
 
trfjr said:
If he is innocent till proven guilty and he was not proven guilty when. where and from whom does he loss his innocence and what process is there to gain it back

Until you can answer those questions your full of crap

the reason juries find you not guilty because before the verdict your already innocent there for they cant give back something you already have
Click to expand...

Innocent means you didn't do it.

Not guilty means the state coudn't prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt you did it.

You can be innocent and be found guilty and you can be guilty and be found not guilty.

They ate two different things.
 
Here's a briefer version of an example (real one) I've given before. After a year of denial, a man confesses to a police polygraph officer he had in fact killed his girlfriend. He then told the polygraph operator (a police staffer) exactly where the body was located. The police went to the location and literally the shovel hit the woman's skull. The airtight case, right? Only that also was THE only evidence and the polygraph officer had not given him Miranda. The court ruled that although not a police officer, he was police staff so therefore none of the evidence could be used. The result? Literally getting away with murder. "Innocent" in the eyes of the law. But guilty as hell of being a murderer in reality. LAW isn't reality. It is just law.
 
On the flip side, people are found guilty of crimes in court - and in the eyes of the law the person is guilty - when in fact the person didn't do it at all. IF the jury HAD found Zimmerman guilty of the crime, you now agree in fact that he was?
 
trfjr said:
your not making any effort to understand it doesn't matter what i, you, or anyone else feels about the verdict. The press by reporting it as news that Zimmerman not being innocent of murder you there for implying guilt of murder and you cant do that, that is slander and defamation of character and that is irresponsible reporting

And the way the American public feels about the press he can easily win that law
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, Z isn't "innocent" in the sense of "without fault".

He wasn't just walking down the street minding his own business.

He engaged in dangerous behavior, and somebody dies as a result.

So semantically its correct.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

So flip it.

What are guilty people who are found not guilty?
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

windowdressing said:
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.
Click to expand...

If there's a counter petition tell me where and ill sign it.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What if...? said:
So flip it.

What are guilty people who are found not guilty?
Click to expand...

Well geez, how do you KNOW they are guilty? Did you witness the event and testify to same but were not believed? Was evidence uncovered later that was not available to any party at trial? Did the guy write a book admitting he did it?

Well, maybe you weren't believed because your testimony was suspect, or turns out it wasn't what you thought you saw. If evidence turns up later, that means the investigation wasn't conducted properly and that is on the State. They have until the Statute of Limitations runs out to try and prosecute...they could have waited until all the evidence was found. If the guy writes a book then see the previous answer.

In the second and third case (proof and admission) I'd agree he was guilty and a lucky SOB.

So what? Until we KNOW for a fact he was guilty, he deserves the presumption of innocence.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best so far, if my legalese isn't failing me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom