He's Gonna Walk...

The maxim in the U.S. legal system is: "Innocent until proven guilty," CBJ7. The jury found Zimmerman "not guilty"; hence, Zimmerman is "innocent" of the crimes for which he was charged. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, the maxim is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty".

So, if the DA fails to make the case, the presumption of innocence continues. But that doesn't mean he is innocent. Those are two different things.

Juries never find a defendant innocent. And that's not just the Zimmerman case, that is ALL cases.

Juries only find that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt - the shorthand version of which is "not guilty".

I think that either New Zealand or Australia once had - and might still have - a verdict of "not proved", which is more accurate than "not guilty".

We should probably switch to something like that. But it would probably feel less satisfactory to society, which prefers clarity even where there is none.

I think that either New Zealand or Australia once had - and might still have - a verdict of "not proved", which is more accurate than "not guilty". Originally Posted by ExNYer

Scotland.

The OJ Simpson and Roger Clemens juries found those defendants "not guilty". Did the jurors regarded them as "innocent"? Originally Posted by chicagoboy

How could I have forgotten to include Casey Anthony among those not-quite-innocent defendants?

I quess al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson who should be more concerded with his son and daughter in law going to prison would understand the courts did there job, if they would only read the constition and under stand it they do not get do overs till the results come out like they want

Actually, the maxim is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty".

So, if the DA fails to make the case, the presumption of innocence continues. But that doesn't mean he is innocent. Those are two different things.

Juries never find a defendant innocent. And that's not just the Zimmerman case, that is ALL cases.

Juries only find that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt - the shorthand version of which is "not guilty".

I think that either New Zealand or Australia once had - and might still have - a verdict of "not proved", which is more accurate than "not guilty".

We should probably switch to something like that. But it would probably feel less satisfactory to society, which prefers clarity even where there is none. Originally Posted by ExNYer

exactly what I said ... thanks

So, if the DA fails to make the case, the presumption of innocence continues. But that doesn't mean he is innocent. Those are two different things. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Just in your mind, until you get charged with a crime. Then it'll be .... "I'm innocent."

Scotland. Originally Posted by chicagoboy

Bingo! Thanks for the catch.

Just in your mind, until you get charged with a crime. Then it'll be .... "I'm innocent." Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, not just in my mind.

What a defendant says about himself has no bearing on what the presumption of law is.

Actual innocence means the guy DID NOT DO IT. It doesn't depend on what the defendant says or does not say. It is determined by the facts - assuming you have all of them.

Lots of defendants say "I'm innocent", including lots of guilty ones. They are lying through their teeth. And then they get convicted anyhow - at least some of the time.

If an actual guilty defendant beats the rap because there wasn't enough evidence to convict, that doesn't make him innocent. He is still guilty.

If an actual guilty defendant beats the rap because there wasn't enough evidence to convict, that doesn't make him innocent. He is still guilty. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, if the actual perpetrator beats the rap, he's "not guilty". Of course, that doesn't mean he's "innocent".

Oh don't get your panties all in a twist. Iam sure there will be a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman and you'll get your sense of revenge that way. Originally Posted by acp5762

Great avatar, GOOOBER! George Zimmerman? REALLY?



This probably puts you in the running for ECCIE's dumbest motherfucker.

Great avatar, GOOOBER! George Zimmerman? REALLY?



This probably puts you in the running for ECCIE's dumbest motherfucker. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Steal that one asshole. You're not in the running for the dumbest motherfucker on ECCIE, you clinched that title for life, and you know it that's why you act like an adolescent jerk every chance you get.

What, no Adolf Hitler? Saddam Hussein? Jack the Ripper? Incredible display of hero worship.

You're definitely the dumbest, GOOOOBER, but to call you a motherfucker would assume you're fucking somebody female. That's probably a mistake. Haven't seen a review in two years now.

Never mind, banjo boy!

What, no Adolf Hitler? Saddam Hussein? Jack the Ripper? Incredible display of hero worship.

You're definitely the dumbest, GOOOOBER, but to call you a motherfucker would assume you're fucking somebody female. That's probably a mistake. Haven't seen a review in two years now.

Never mind, banjo boy! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not all the women in the world are on ECCIE dumbass. If you knew what you were really doing you would know that.

Ouch!

I don't believe you GOOOOOBER! You're lying through your tooth!

Ouch!

I don't believe you GOOOOOBER! You're lying through your tooth! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Nope I don't have to lie. That's your territory. I am only here for the entertainment that these threads provide.

Pitiful shame you don't provide any entertainment or value, Mr. Zimmerman's fan clubresident.