TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote:The Bible says none of us are innocent. So did Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven" "We all got it comin', kid"

The Bible affirmed by Clint Eastwood...it don't get no better than that...

OK, now that you have said we will have to disagree, I agree. What you are trying to say is that he was 'not proved' guilty. A jury cannot find someone innocent. They have to either prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, or determine there is not sufficient evidence to prove him guilty. In this case, the only way he would be 'proved innocent' is if there had been witnesses or other evidence that said he had not been the one that shot Martin. We all know he did. so there really is no way to 'prove' his innocence.

HOWEVER, the burden of proof being what it is in our legal system and the Presumption of Innocence being standard, he is still innocent until PROVED guilty, which he wasn't. While the US Constitution does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. And it IS spelled out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

So, while he was not proved to be guilty we all have to presume he is innocent without evidence to the contrary.
.

RottenApple wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:WE're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, which is fine.

Of course it's fine. You are, after all, entitled to your incorrect opinion.

Keith B wrote:OK, now that you have said we will have to disagree, I agree. What you are trying to say is that he was 'not proved' guilty. A jury cannot find someone innocent. They have to either prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, or determine there is not sufficient evidence to prove him guilty. In this case, the only way he would be 'proved innocent' is if there had been witnesses or other evidence that said he had not been the one that shot Martin. We all know he did. so there really is no way to 'prove' his innocence.

HOWEVER, the burden of proof being what it is in our legal system and the Presumption of Innocence being standard, he is still innocent until PROVED guilty, which he wasn't. While the US Constitution does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. And it IS spelled out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

So, while he was not proved to be guilty we all have to presume he is innocent without evidence to the contrary.
.

I can agree to that completely. So we can agree to disagree but are in fact agreeing. Now my brain hurts...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Here is my last comment on this. You are playing semantics. They found him not guilty. The definition of guilty is:

guilt·y/ˈgɪlti/ Show Spelled [gil-tee] Show IPA
adjective, guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est.
1. having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her guilty of murder.
2. characterized by, connected with, or involving guilt: guilty intent.
3. having or showing a sense of guilt, whether real or imagined: a guilty conscience.

So, he was found free of guilt or guiltless in this case.

The definition of innocent says:

in·no·cent/ˈɪnəsənt/ Show Spelled [in-uh-suhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually followed by of ): a law innocent of merit.

So by definition he was innocent of the crime. If you want to argue it more, take it up with Mr. Webster and his dictionary.

Its the not semantics, its the law.
They did not find him innocent. They did not have sufficient evidence to support a guilty plea using the high legal standard required.
he may in fact be innocent. The jury certainly didn't have enough evidence to convict him. But they did not find him innocent.

To be techinically correct, though the verdict was "not guilty", the reason the jury found "not guilty" was that it was a justified homicide, since he admitted committing the act, but was acting in self-defense.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: I agree with everything but the last sentence. Corrected.

His sentence didn't need correcting. As stated, we are all legally innocent, until a jury proves us guilty. Legally, he's innocent. Factually, we don't know if he committed a murder or not, but legally he's innocent.

While we're at semantics, factually we don't know if you committed a murder or not either. That doesn't make you guilty. As a matter of record, Zimmerman has one up on you, a jury has spoken on his issue, none has on yours.

So, are you "not innocent" of murder? Every bit as much as Zimmerman is "not innocent" of murder (possibly moreso).

The horse is a bloody pulp by now!

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have read on this board.

Is this about Zimmerman getting stopped by the police, wow 172 posts.

Hey, look who I found while driving through South Dakota a couple of days ago!

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:WE're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, which is fine.

Of course it's fine. You are, after all, entitled to your incorrect opinion.

I'm always amused by people who refuse to admit they are wrong. Go down with the ship Captain.

jmra wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:WE're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, which is fine.

Of course it's fine. You are, after all, entitled to your incorrect opinion.

I'm always amused by people who refuse to admit they are wrong. Go down with the ship Captain.

My grandfather was a ship captain. The Germans allowed him the opportunity of going down with his ship...twice!

MadMonkey wrote:Hey, look who I found while driving through South Dakota a couple of days ago!

[ Image ]

YOU have and X-WING!!! COOL!!!