• 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

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...

What if...? said:
I think that's the best so far, if my legalese isn't failing me.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, except a defendant in U.S. court does not get a choice to plead "innocent" even when presenting an affirmative defense. One is only allowed to plead either Guilty or Not Guilty.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
As a supplement to my prior response, here is your answer:

""I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken," Obama said in a written statement released by the White House."

The Justice Department will follow the lead of the President.
Click to expand...

the Justice dept. is reviewing the case ...
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What if...? said:
If there's a counter petition tell me where and ill sign it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is, but you should start one ... Don't expect others to do things for you ... Do it!
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

You can plead No Contest as well, meaning that you claim neither innocence nor guilt but do not contest the charges. However, this is often either thrown out or treated as a guilty plea, and is usually only ever used in regards to minor infractions such as traffic violations or in cases with impending civil suits, as a no contest plea cannot be taken as an admission of guilt in civil court.

Zimmerman was found not guilty of any criminal offenses. However he killed a man, so he is certainly not innocent.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

He is found "not guilty", meaning he is without a doubt innocent of the charges filed against him. If someone believes him to be "not innocent" then let them describe which crime he is "not innocent" of.

There is absolutely no doubt he shot Trayvon Martin. There is no question of innocence or guilt. There is no doubt that in shooting Trayvon martin he ended his life. Again...not in doubt but there IS NO question of innocence or guilt. So anyone that believes he is "not innocent"...then you should have no problem identifying what he is "not innocent" for. He IS innocent of the commission of Murder in the second degree, third degree, and manslaughter.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

windowdressing said:
the Justice dept. is reviewing the case ...
Click to expand...

That's "governmentspeak" for: Lets keep people who are angry happy, but we aren't really doing anything at all. The DOJ works for the President. It will do what he dicides.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
That's "governmentspeak" for: Lets keep people who are angry happy, but we aren't really doing anything at all. The DOJ works for the President. It will do what he dicides.
Click to expand...

as I've indicated a few times, I think that's the way it will turn out ... it will be a very hard case to prove ... but I tend to leave the door open to possibilities since we don't have all of the info, and the burden of proof is less in these cases ... BTW, if they decide to go with, where will the jurors come from? Still Florida? ... Anyway, we'll see soon enough ...
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

windowdressing said:
as I've indicated a few times, I think that's the way it will turn out ... it will be a very hard case to prove ... but I tend to leave the door open to possibilities since we don't have all of the info, and the burden of proof is less in these cases ... BTW, if they decide to go with, where will the jurors come from? Still Florida? ... Anyway, we'll see soon enough ...
Click to expand...

While the burden of proof is less, the basis of the crime is different. In the state criminal trial, there was no need to prove any racial animosity.

IMO, GZ should be worrying about a civil trial. There's a significant possibility that he lose that.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

sangha said:
While the burden of proof is less, the basis of the crime is different. In the state criminal trial, there was no need to prove any racial animosity.

IMO, GZ should be worrying about a civil trial. There's a significant possibility that he lose that.
Click to expand...

I agree, but Obama has a tendency to stay away from things racial, so I suspect the DOJ will not go down that road ...
 
Occam's Razor said:
Why is it that so many conservatives are unable to spell? Your/you're, there/their/they're, to/too, therefore/there for...
Click to expand...

partisan hackery alert!!!!!!!! and FTR, misusing your/you're, there/their/they're, etc is not a matter of being unable to spell.
 
In legal speak, everybody is innocent except the people sitting in jail after their trial. nobody us considered proven innocent.


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

Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

From the state, yes. And protected thereby.

Anybody who's followed this closely has been privy to TONS of information the jury wasn't allowed to hear. That's just how it works.

Doesn't change my conclusions or beliefs.

But I am satisfied its done with, feel no need to put Z through more ****. He's probably getting sued, and that will likely go badly. But I kinda think that sucks too.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Captain Adverse said:
Interesting idea, except a defendant in U.S. court does not get a choice to plead "innocent" even when presenting an affirmative defense. One is only allowed to plead either Guilty or Not Guilty.
Click to expand...

He not "innocent" though. There's blood on his hands. He's just not guilty of a crime for doing so.

That's the distinction.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

Indeed, this is particularly relevant to cases when individuals are physically harmed. Guilty of crime or no, a human being has still been harmed. Innocence is impossible here.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What if...? said:
He not "innocent" though. There's blood on his hands. He's just not guilty of a crime for doing so.

That's the distinction.
Click to expand...

You think he (or anyone else who has) wanted to kill another human? Do you completely disregard the mental/emotional effect that has on people? Yeah, those that support the 2nd amendment are just about always touted as people that want to kill others, nothing is further from the truth. There are times when it happens when defending oneself or others, but it is not a desired outcome, ever.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Citation for this.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

sangha said:
While the burden of proof is less, the basis of the crime is different. In the state criminal trial, there was no need to prove any racial animosity.

IMO, GZ should be worrying about a civil trial. There's a significant possibility that he lose that.
Click to expand...

Disagree. If the jury finds it was self defense, under Florida law the Plaintiff then has to pay GZ's attorney fees, all other trial related expenses of GZ and all court costs - a unique Florida law and one of the rare instances where a Plaintiff faces such risks.
 
SMTA said:
Citation for this.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that was a long time ago.

However, that applied in all cases dismissed for lack of Miranda.
 
Zimmerman's attorney was able to proof his clients innocence before a jury, that is why the verdict of the jury was not guilty. but i imagine that Zimmerman will have a harder time living a normal life after the case, because this case has left a stigma attached to him.
 
trfjr said:
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...

Hahahaha! You're a libertarian! Don't you get it? Free market capitalism is precisely the reason that completely biased reporting is so prevalent. Now, I'd say the Huffington Post is really more of an opinion site, so it's not quite as bad, but take MSNBC and all the stories they've done on race during and after the trial. Why do they do it? Because people love it! Their base loves it, and they're selling a product, not trying to win the prize for most honest journalism ever. In a libertarian world, what motivation exists for fair reporting? It doesn't sell. Reagan put an end to the era where media outlets were required to be balanced, and as soon as that happened, we were blessed with the Fox News' and MSNBC's of the world.

What can we do? Regulate them. We already did that and conservatives didn't like it (in all fairness, liberals weren't huge on it either). So people are sold the stories they want to buy. And you, the libertarian, are outraged? I find that to be hilarious.
 
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What if...? said:
Anybody who's followed this closely has been privy to TONS of information the jury wasn't allowed to hear. That's just how it works.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for saying this but, THAT is a crock of ****!

The JURY is presented with FACTS under clearly defined rules of evidence.

Anyone else who had "followed this closely" has been fed commentary, opinion, speculation, accusation, hearsay, and a great deal of emotional B/S.

A jury is instructed to ignore all this, talk to no one about the case, and in highly emotional trials is often sequestered to prevent bias from entering into their decision making process. I understand Zimmerman’s jury was so sequestered.

The court of public opinion is simply the peanut gallery...and their opinions are worthless.
 
Last edited:
Re: Not Guilty but not Innocent WTF

What if...? said:
He not "innocent" though. There's blood on his hands. He's just not guilty of a crime for doing so.

That's the distinction.
Click to expand...

What's the old saying??? It is a "distinction without a difference." A jury has found him not guilty; until some new evidence (or an admission he was at fault comes from his own mouth) appears, that verdict is good enough for me. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him in all ways as an innocent man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom