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.
There is no innocent verdict because George Zimmerman walked in already innocent. The trial is held to determine guilt and guilt was not found therefore his innocent status does not change.
George walked in that courtroom an INNOCENT man on trial and walked out still INNOCENT.
If you want to argue courtroom procedure we can do that all day, I'm not going to waste my time arguing the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights with you because you clearly aren't qualified to.
Pretty sad that people keep having to explain something so simple, isn't it!
The jury pronounced him "not guilty" not 'innocent' and for a reason: He wasn't found 'innocent' because proof or refutation of innocence was never part of the trial process. George Zimmerman did NOT walk in to that courtroom innocent. He walked in to that courtroom presumed innocent.
You seem to be making a distinction because of the word presumed. However, presumed simply means you are to believe something without proof. Thus, that means you walk into a courtroom believed to be innocent unless or until there is proof otherwise.
1 : to undertake without leave or clear justification : dare
2: to expect or assume especially with confidence 3: to suppose to be true without proof <presumed innocent until proved guilty>
4: to take for granted : imply
The jury pronounced him "not guilty" not 'innocent' and for a reason: He wasn't found 'innocent' because proof or refutation of innocence was never part of the trial process. George Zimmerman did NOT walk in to that courtroom innocent. He walked in to that courtroom presumed innocent.
He walked in Innocent UNTIL proven guilty and he was not proven guilty.
If it were required to put the "victim" on trial in a self defense case, Trayvon would have been on trial. In this case he likely would have been found guilty of assault, in order to prove George innocent.
Had Martin not looked like a thug and dressed like a thug, he wouldn't have been assumed to be a thug. And Zimmerman would not have followed him. Parents, don't let your kids leave the house looking like a thug. Don't let your kids act like a thug. Be a responsible parent. If you think Trayvon Martin's parents were good parents, you're an idiot.
Holy crap!
In the winter, I LIVE in hoodies!
Does that make me a thug, too, someone asking for trouble by the way I dress?
I guess, by your definition, I am a white, 58-year-old granny.........thug.
The rest of your post is a bunch of racist trash and not worthy of a response.
Isn't it astonishing how few people understand "Innocent Until Proven Guilty".
If he was innocent until proven guilty, then was proven "not guilty", that makes him STILL innocent.
It's not rocket science.
The "Presumption of Innocence" is a legal principle which means that the burden of proof is upon the accuser and not the accused. It does NOT mean that the person is in fact innocent. It simply means that the accuser must prove the accusations and the accused in a trial is "presumed innocent" for the purposes of the trial.
Did you think O.J. was innocent prior to and after the trial because the legal principle of "presumption of innocence" applied after he was found not guilty? A black guy that was found "not guilty"......could he possibly have been "innocent" after the trial just because of a not guilty verdict and because in the court of law he was "presumed innocent"?
Innocent people are convicted in our system and guilty people are acquitted. The proof of innocent people being convicted is found in large numbers in the exonerations of numbers of people who were sent to death row. DNA proved they were not guilty after the technology became available. PERSONALLY, I would indeed rather see a guilty person go FREE than a innocent person convicted and in some cases executed.
Apparently to some people, who seem to be especially didactic, is just may be "rocket science."
Now you are catching on. People are tired of thugs getting away with what they do so now they are arming themselves at an alarming rate.
I visit a local gun store often and they hold concealed permit classes. They average over 60 permits a week and they are a small store. And the people in the classes are of all races and sexes.
Like I said, Behave and you will be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I have three boys, ages 19, 24, and 26. Their "take away" from this is "Don't walk to the store wearing a hoodie, or you may get stalked because someone doesn't like the way you look." What am I supposed to tell them - run? Call 9-1-1? Whatever you do, don't confront the aggressor? Run or hide as if you are guilty, or you may get shot? Guilty of what - wearing a hoodie? Having a dark skin tone? Being young?
Sad times.
Arm them. Then everyone will have to 'behave' as the above-poster puts it. That's the world they want to live in - let's give it to them.
All you guys so sure Florida law protects GZ from civil suits please explain why Casey Anthony is facing civil suits?
Sigh. Several times it's been posted that the reason is because GZ was found not guilty by reason of self defense.
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.
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.
