Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure how you failed to realize that. Do understand what the term LINGUISTIC means?
Did you even understand the point about the two individuals mentioned? One is of European descent and the other of African descent...both are Hispanic. It is a lingustic or even cultural reference - NOT racial.
How did you really miss that? Or are you being willfully ignorant?
But you see that makes entirely too much sense. People would rather stand by their ignorant racist beliefs.
The case is about the pursuit, of zimm against the boy. the fight and the shooting.
The case was not about nor ever should have been about the kid and his background.
This video only deals with the background of the boy, his behavior and what surrounds the tragedy, and how pure zimm was.
Not about what happens when zimm and the boy met.
There is a lot of supposition with regard to what he would do with the drink - none of it happened the kid was killed.
By the way - Robitussin is an over the counter cough medicine and doesn't include codeine as an ingredient. Codeine based pharmaceuticals are only available by prescription from your doctor.
Sure he could have gone home with the drink and done illicit things, but that's unknown. The kid is dead.
I never saw any report about liver damage of the boy from stupid drinks mixes.
It is false to imagine what the kid would do with the drink and skittles.
He never got to use them if that was an intention.
What happened was a chase, and pursuit of an innocent kid.
I think the jury said something more along the lines of = We, the Jury, unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidencefind the defendant not guilty...
Which isnt the same as finding him innocent..
I think the jury said something more along the lines of = We, the Jury, unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidencefind the defendant not guilty...
Which isnt the same as finding him innocent..
Quote:
However, as a matter of law, under the Constitution a “Not Guilty” verdict does equal innocence. Let me explain. By our constitution, any person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent. This presumption is not overcome unless, and until, the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Since the Presumption of Innocence attaches to the Defendant throughout the entire trial, including deliberations, he is innocent unless the jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why there is no alternative on the verdict form of “Innocent”. If the jury finds that the State has not proven guilt, then the Defendant is still innocent as a matter of law.
Therefore, “Not Guilty” = “Innocent”.
Prosecutors and others routinely comment that a “Not Guilty” verdict does not mean that the jury has found that the Defendant is completely innocent. That is true, but the jury has no option to find the Defendant innocent. Because the Defendant is presumed innocent and the State has the sole burden to prove guilt, it is not necessary for the jury to determine innocence. That is why we have the 5th Amendment which provides that a Defendant cannot be compelled to testify. He need not prove his innocence, because he is presumed to be innocent.
Now you understand? Have you forgotten here in the United States of America a person is innocent until proven guilty.... It takes a warped mind to twist that into not guilty does not = innocent....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.