TexasCHLforum.com

RogueUSMC wrote:The dude is innocent because the judicial system did not bear burden of proof to the contrary...

Innocence was not the verdict in that court... The verdict was "Not Guilty"... not "Innocent"...
There's more than semantics differences between those two terms.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Not proving something is far different from affirmatively proving innocence.

Personally, I think Zimmerman is "Innocent", too.

RoyGBiv wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:The dude is innocent because the judicial system did not bear burden of proof to the contrary...

Innocence was not the verdict in that court... The verdict was "Not Guilty"... not "Innocent"...
There's more than semantics differences between those two terms.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Not proving something is far different from affirmatively proving innocence.

Personally, I think Zimmerman is "Innocent", too.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Presumption Of Innocence
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
- Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary

RogueUSMC wrote:Presumption Of Innocence
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
- Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary

Yes, you have restated that everyone is entitled to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
They are still not proven innocent. Thats an affirmative. they are just not proven guilty under that standard.

if he had to prove himself innocent he would be in jail, as there's no evidence for that, either.

RoyGBiv wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:The dude is innocent because the judicial system did not bear burden of proof to the contrary...

Innocence was not proven in that court... The verdict was "Not Guilty"... not "Innocent"...
There's more than semantics differences between those two terms.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Not proving something is far different from affirmatively proving innocence.

We begin from a position of innocence. The prosecution brings charges against you in court. You remain innocent until you are proven guilty. If the prosecution fails to prove their case, then you are still innocent.

That's how it is supposed to work. Now, the prosecution failed to prove OJ Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and her lover, but we all "know" he's guilty (quote marks deliberate, to make a point). Prosecution failed to prove it because it was OJ Simpson, and the jury didn't want to hear or say "guilty." it was essentially a race-based verdict. Here is some OJ jury information: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nal%20Jury

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

{——SNIP——}

Attorneys can exercise their peremptory challenges for almost any reason--body language, appearance, dissatisfaction with answers--but not for reasons of race or sex. Every challenge by the prosecution of a potential black juror caused Cochran to approach the bench and suggest that the challenge may have been racially motivated. This tactic may have worked to dissuade the prosecution from challenging some black jurors.

When the jury selection is so racially charged, particularly in what is a racially charged murder by a black man of a white woman in a case that is trumpeted by the local media as being racially charged, there is almost no way that justice will be done. And Los Angeles had just had the "Rodney King" riots 3 years before the OJ trial, and large swaths of the city were still being rebuilt from that event. I can easily imagine that the prosecution team, which was multiracial by the way, had to have been worried in the back of their minds about the possibility of more rioting if OJ were convicted after they challenged black potential jurors too aggressively.

The point of this is that we all have our own opinions about whether OJ, or Zimmerman, is guilty or innocent. But in both trials, whatever our opinions and OJ's subsequent difficulties notwithstanding, prosecutors failed to make their case. And since the defendant goes to trial with a presumption of innocence which it is the prosecution's task to counter with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and since both prosecutors failed to do that, both men are innocent....whatever our personally held, and possibly informed, opinions happen to be.

So no, Zimmerman was not proven innocent; he remains innocent because he has not been proven guilty.

Bingo.

And thats the key. He was not proven innocent. The state only failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's no hero.
1. He could indeed have done it. There's no evidence either way. Thats not enough to prove guilt, but nor is it enough to show he was innocent.
2. He was guilty of poor judgement in two key decisions, and that has cost him much.

He is however, an excellent example of what NOT to do when you have a CHL.
1. Be a good witness. Once you've done that stay out of the way.
2. Avoid potential confrontations. Going into a dark space in the rain at night after someone lacks responsble thinking.

This is why Logic should be a required class. One can not prove a negative.

Simply making "errors of judgement" is not a crime.

If Zimmerman did in fact make some "stupid decisions" (and remember, none of you were there and really have no earthly idea what the totality of the situation was), that of itself is not criminal, nor is it evidence pointing to a crime.

Only one perfect man ever walked this earth, and look what happened to him.

Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

bdickens wrote:This is why Logic should be a required class. One can not prove a negative.

Simply making "errors of judgement" is not a crime.

If Zimmerman did in fact make some "stupid decisions" (and remember, none of you were there and really have no earthly idea what the totality of the situation was), that of itself is not criminal, nor is it evidence pointing to a crime.

Only one perfect man ever walked this earth, and look what happened to him.

Lots of people who claimed errors of judgement are in jail or have been executed.

No one says being stupid in this instance was a crime-ok thats not true, but no one here. But he's no hero. Its his right to be here, but I'd prefer he kept going to somewhere else.

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

I think you missed TAM's point completely. You start from innocent until proven guilty. Absent proof of guilt, you remain innocent. Where in criminal law is the requirement to prove innocence as you keep reminding was not done?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

Because you can't prove a negative: "not guilty." The system doesn't allow it. You may not like the guy. That's fine. It's your right. But legally, he's "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around. That's how we roll in the United States of America. Get over it.

G26ster wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

I think you missed TAM's point completely. You start from innocent until proven guilty. Absent proof of guilt, you remain innocent. Where in criminal law is the requirement to prove innocence as you keep reminding was not done?

Yes in a court of law you don't have to prove innocence. But a court of law doesn't prove you were innocent either. In this case especially as there is no evidence or testimony of what started the actual conflict.

Which is of course why the prosecution lost and the original prosecutor didn't want to go forward in the first place.

Well, George is welcome in my neighborhood. And he's highly unlikely to encounter any criminal activity.