George Zimmerman popped for speeding in Texas...

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Exactly. CPD is insisting on ignoring the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." He insists on not responding to it. He insists on a legal system which does not now nor has ever existed in the United States of America.

You are innocent. That is yours (and mine) default legal status. The prosecutor begs to disagree because he thinks you committed a crime, and he tries to prove a case of criminal guilt against you. If he fails to prove you are criminally guilty, then you are still innocent. If he does prove it, you are guilty, and you are no longer innocent. That is the backbone of the criminal justice system. That's how we roll in the U.S. of A.

P.E.R.I.O.D.

Now, substitute "Zimmerman" for "you" in the above paragraph, and here is what you get:

Zimmerman is innocent. That is Zimmerman's (and mine) default legal status. The prosecutor begs to disagree because he thinks Zimmerman committed a crime, and he tries to prove a case of criminal guilt against Zimmerman. If he fails to prove Zimmerman is criminally guilty, then Zimmerman is still innocent. If he does prove it, Zimmerman is guilty, and Zimmerman are no longer innocent. That is the backbone of the criminal justice system. That's how we roll in the U.S. of A.

P.E.R.I.O.D.

Twisting meanings.....that's an old leftist trick. It is also the tactic of those who cannot refute logic, so they try and redefine the terms more favorably to their argument. That dog won't hunt. Not in any kind of rational argument founded in logic. Now, you may have your opinion—which is why I referenced opinions in my previous quote where I talked about OJ Simpson—but your opinion has absolutely ZERO legal weight, and it has even less legal validity. Why? Because since A) our default legal state is "innocent;" and B) Zimmerman's prosector failed to prove guilt; then C) Zimmerman is still innocent.

THAT is the law. Like it or not.

Theres NO legal status called "not innocent, but not really guilty either."

I kinda admire his obstinance though..........

[puma guy]

Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Remember boys and girls, the jury found him "not guilty" NOT "innocent."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zi ... berations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The jury has no part in declaring him innocent. The "LAW" says he is/was already innocent until proven guilty. They found him not guilty and since he was not "proven guilty" he remains innocent. He can not be both on the charges he faced.
Edit: Missed your post TAM. You stated it more eloquently than I.

[RottenApple]

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.

They didn't need to "find him innocent" because he was innocent before the trial even began. Innocent until proven guilty. It's really a very simple concept.

[sjfcontrol]

Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Remember boys and girls, the jury found him "not guilty" NOT "innocent."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zi ... berations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The jury has no part in declaring him innocent. The "LAW" says he is/was already innocent until proven guilty. They found him not guilty and since he was not "proven guilty" he remains innocent. He can not be both on the charges he faced.
Edit: Missed your post TAM. You stated it more eloquently than I.

And besides, the jury COULDN'T have found him innocent event if they wanted to. The only options they had available were "guilty of 2nd degree murder", "guilty of manslaughter" (with a few add-ons for use of a gun), or "not guilty". There was no "innocent" checkbox on the jury form to check.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

They didn't need to "find him innocent" because he was innocent before the trial even began. Innocent until proven guilty. It's really a very simple concept.

It is a simple concept. He wasn't found guilty to a standard of evidence.

If you want to call him innocent, fine. But thats not accurate. The jury found only that the state didn't sufficiently prove its case to the required legal standard.

None of us knows if he is in fact innocent.

[Cedar Park Dad]

And besides, the jury COULDN'T have found him innocent event if they wanted to. The only options they had available were "guilty of 2nd degree murder", "guilty of manslaughter" (with a few add-ons for use of a gun), or "not guilty". There was no "innocent" checkbox on the jury form to check.

Exactly.

[Keith B]

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.

They didn't need to "find him innocent" because he was innocent before the trial even began. Innocent until proven guilty. It's really a very simple concept.

It is a simple concept. He wasn't found guilty to a standard of evidence.

If you want to call him innocent, fine. But thats not accurate. The jury found only that the state didn't sufficiently prove its case to the required legal standard.

None of us knows if he is in fact innocent.

Let me see, it's one against the multitude. Apprently we will never convince you that in the case of murder of Travon Martin, George Zimmerman was innocent. Zimmerman WAS guilty of is making some legal but bad judegement calls that put him in the situation in the first place. He WAS gulty of having to use deadly force to defend himself against an unwarrented assault by Martin. However, he was innocent of the murder of Martin, pure and simple.

[RottenApple]

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.

They didn't need to "find him innocent" because he was innocent before the trial even began. Innocent until proven guilty. It's really a very simple concept.

It is a simple concept. He wasn't found guilty to a standard of evidence.

If you want to call him innocent, fine. But thats not accurate. The jury found only that the state didn't sufficiently prove its case to the required legal standard.

None of us knows if he is in fact innocent.

CPD, I can't tell if you don't get it or if you're just having fun. He was innocent. The prosecutor believed he had committed a crime and tried tried him. The jury found him not guilty, therefore he is still innocent. He remained innocent all through the whole ordeal. THAT is our legal system.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Let me see, it's one against the multitude. Apprently we will never convince you that in the case of murder of Travon Martin, George Zimmerman was innocent. Zimmerman WAS guilty of is making some legal but bad judegement calls that put him in the situation in the first place. He WAS gulty of having to use deadly force to defend himself against an unwarrented assault by Martin. However, he was found not guilty of the murder of Martin, pure and simple.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Corrected.

[Keith B]

Let me see, it's one against the multitude. Apprently we will never convince you that in the case of murder of Travon Martin, George Zimmerman was innocent. Zimmerman WAS guilty of is making some legal but bad judegement calls that put him in the situation in the first place. He WAS gulty of having to use deadly force to defend himself against an unwarrented assault by Martin. However, he was found not guilty of the murder of Martin, pure and simple.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Corrected.

You finally get it! He was found not guilty of the murder, so per Webster's dictionary he was innocent of it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Let me see, it's one against the multitude. Apprently we will never convince you that in the case of murder of Travon Martin, George Zimmerman was innocent. Zimmerman WAS guilty of is making some legal but bad judegement calls that put him in the situation in the first place. He WAS gulty of having to use deadly force to defend himself against an unwarrented assault by Martin. However, he was found not guilty of the murder of Martin, pure and simple.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Corrected.

You finally get it! He was found not guilty of the murder, so per Webster's dictionary he was innocent of it.

One does not equate to the other. It can, but that is not a statistical certainty. For example, if I were on the jury with the evidence they actually saw, I
1. would have been major ticked to have sat through this travesty of a case.
2. found the case had almost no evidence to support the charge. They pretty much defaulted to "TM shot so GZ guilty," without addressing the affirmative defense GZ was using "yes but it was self defense." I don't get what they were trying to do frankly.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, which is fine.

[RottenApple]

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.

[puma guy]

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

[bdickens]

It is a simple concept. He wasn't found guilty to a standard of evidence.

If you want to call him innocent, fine. But thats not accurate. The jury found only that the state didn't sufficiently prove its case to the required legal standard.

None of us knows if he is in fact innocent.

It is a simple concept.

Here in the United States of America, one of the most basic - perhaps the most basic - concepts in our criminal justice system is that the defendant is innocent until he is proven guilty. You understand that? The defendant is innocent from the start. Get that through your head.

THE DEFENDANT STARTS OUT BEING INNOCENT. Legally. He is legally defined as being innocent and remains so through the whole process up to the time that a jury finds him guilty.

The burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state can not do that, then the defendant remains as he was all along. Innocent. By definition.

So saying Zimmerman is innocent is absolutely 100% accurate. By definition.

Of course the jury can't find him innocent. HE ALREADY IS.

By definition.


Your tiresome semantic games have really gotten old.