• 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!

George Zimmerman Arrested Again In Central Florida [W:351]

Oh, so if you apply this line or reasoning to OJ Simpson...You can be guilty and it not be proven so you are found not guilty, no one knows if you are innocent. Z was not proven innocent, just like OJ was not proven innocent.
Again, it is impossible to prove someone innocent, because they are, legally, considered innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman was not proven guilty, and OJ Simpson was not proven guilty - court decides they are not guilty, thus still innocent.

This is by design completely separate from the court of opinion, which pronounced both of them either innocent or guilty, depending on who you talked to, long before the trials occurred.
 
I am not going back thru the 1000+ post but the reason I got on this was because they keep trying to say Z was proven innocent. He most certainly was not.
Again, it is impossible to prove someone innocent, because they are, legally, considered innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman was not proven guilty, and OJ Simpson was not proven guilty - court decides they are not guilty, thus still innocent.

This is by design completely separate from the court of opinion, which pronounced both of them either innocent or guilty, depending on who you talked to, long before the trials occurred.
 
I am not going back thru the 1000+ post but the reason I got on this was because they keep trying to say Z was proven innocent. He most certainly was not.
Agreed.

But at the same time, he most certainly is not considered guilty in any legal sense, either.
 
It does not mean you are really not guilty, just that there is not enough evidence to convict the person.
That is nothing more than an excuse used by those who do not like a verdict.

Especially as in this case, as there was no evidence that supported a guilty verdict.





What we have here, with Zimmerman, is a gun fetishist who sees the point of a gun as the solution to every conflict he encounters.
It is just a matter of time before he is killed, or locked up for a very long time.
You are still demonstrating that you know not of what you speak.
 
Ok, this is where you are not getting it, if not proven otherwise you are found not guilty. It does not mean you are really not guilty, just that there is not enough evidence to convict the person. YOu cannot make the statement because someone is found not guilty they really did not do it (innocent).

call it "not guilty", call it "innocent". you are quibbling over semantics. If you are found "not guilty" in court then, in the eyes of the law, you did not commit the crime. of course, you will always get those who disagree with the verdict to come in squealing "he did it, they just couldn't prove it"

that is why we have the presumption of innocence.
 
That is nothing more than an excuse used by those who do not like a verdict.

Especially as in this case, as there was no evidence that supported a guilty verdict.





You are still demonstrating that you know not of what you speak.

bolded: spot on.
 
Again, it is impossible to prove someone innocent, because they are, legally, considered innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman was not proven guilty, and OJ Simpson was not proven guilty - court decides they are not guilty, thus still innocent.

This is by design completely separate from the court of opinion, which pronounced both of them either innocent or guilty, depending on who you talked to, long before the trials occurred.

again, spot on. you are presumed to be innocent. if they cannot prove otherwise, the presumption stands and you are, in fact, innocent.
 
I am not disagreeing with the verdict, I am pointing out there is a world of difference in being found not guilty and proven innocent. Zimmerman was not proven innocent. It is just a fact.
call it "not guilty", call it "innocent". you are quibbling over semantics. If you are found "not guilty" in court then, in the eyes of the law, you did not commit the crime. of course, you will always get those who disagree with the verdict to come in squealing "he did it, they just couldn't prove it"

that is why we have the presumption of innocence.
 
I am not disagreeing with the verdict, I am pointing out there is a world of difference in being found not guilty and proven innocent. Zimmerman was not proven innocent. It is just a fact.

Zimmerman was presumed innocent. it was not proven otherwise. the presumption stands and he is therefore still innocent.
 
I am not disagreeing with the verdict, I am pointing out there is a world of difference in being found not guilty and proven innocent. Zimmerman was not proven innocent. It is just a fact.

I am beginning to wonder if you even understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
 
You dont understand a person who stands trial and is found not guilty is not "proven" innocent. Z's trial did not prove him innocnet, there simply was not enough evidence to find him guilty. This is a very simple concept. Do you believe Z was proven innocent?
I am beginning to wonder if you even understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
 
Still not grasping presumption of innocence I see. Like the famous movie line goes..."some people you just can't reach..."
 
Do you think Zimmerman was proven innocent?
Still not grasping presumption of innocence I see. Like the famous movie line goes..."some people you just can't reach..."
 
You dont understand a person who stands trial and is found not guilty is not "proven" innocent. Z's trial did not prove him innocnet, there simply was not enough evidence to find him guilty. This is a very simple concept. Do you believe Z was proven innocent?
No one who understands even slightly how the legal system in the US works would think that.

At the same time, when you present the argument in that way, it halfway sounds like you're trying to say "he's guilty, but they could't prove it".

Rather, you could say "Zimmerman is still considered innocent", or something...
 
The only reason I belabored the point is the Zbots often say he was proven innocent. He wasn't.
No one who understands even slightly how the legal system in the US works would think that.

At the same time, when you present the argument in that way, it halfway sounds like you're trying to say "he's guilty, but they could't prove it".

Rather, you could say "Zimmerman is still considered innocent", or something...
 
The only reason I belabored the point is the Zbots often say he was proven innocent. He wasn't.

Just wondering, if you can locate one post where a "ZBot" says he was found innocent by a court?
 
The only reason I belabored the point is the Zbots often say he was proven innocent. He wasn't.
Which many of us know. Your word choices, however, are implying another statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom