Zimmerman friend--'In my heart I believe he targeted Martin for his race'

Like OJ?

 

So since you can't post any of the death threats from conservatives that I asked you to, your answer is to just treat it like jaywalking

Zimmerman and his family are not doctors lawyers actors or the president, they don't have millions to pay for security. You didn't like the verdict, are you saying you support death threats against someone found not guilty by a court of law?

 

OMG!!!

Of course if you are innocent you are obviously not guilty, but by legal standards, being found not guilty does not equate to being innocent.

 

You just cannot accept it can you?

 

Innocence was never established. Not guilty was. I'll take the Law Dictionary defintion and a District Attorney's understanding of it over yours.

 

When ever asked it always goes unanswered .

Did the jury have an option to say not guilty or " we find you innocent ?

A person is always innocent till otherwise found guilty . Otherwise , every person ever charged with a crime would be considered not innocent. A jury doesn't find innocence , it's already there . They find guilt .

 

The definition above is incorrect. To make it correct, it needs to be modified in the following way, "a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean that THE JUDGE OR JURY reached a conclusion that the defendant was innocent, it is neither necessary nor their job to do so, but rather that the lack of conviction reestablishes the preexisting innocence of the defendant as a matter of law."

As an aside, laymen, be very, very careful about using the internet for legal research. The above quoted erroneous definition is a good example of the dangers of it.

 

Guilt was never established either.

"Innocent until proven guilty"...what part of that do you not understand?

 

What, seriously, is the deal with black people? We actually have to have metal detectors in urban high schools, and this is somehow seen as acceptable. You can't take your kid to a park in a black neighborhood. Flip on the news, and there is no chance you'll see an Indian person, for instance, as a suspect in a robbery, housebreak, assault, etc. Were it not for black and Hispanic people, there would be no almost no news except for sports and weather. The President is black. The Attorney General was black, and he provably hated white people. Affirmative Action gave blacks extra points on civil service exams simply based on their being black. http://articles.philly.com/1988-11-...-test-minority-firefighters-city-firefighters Black women have unassailable job security, almost no matter what they do, and you know this. What else is necessary for the community of black people to unscrew their heads from their rectums and function as a viable societal element? Let us know, because we're tired of guessing.

 

On this subject, please ask me to corroborate my statement that Eric Holder hates white people.

 

Presumed innocent until a trial commences and at that point facts are presented.

 

The jury's job is to find guilt , not innocence . Can you link us to any trials where the jury said not only nto guilty but came back with a complete innocence verdict ?

 

Let me ask you something.

When a person is asked to enter a plea before a judge he has 2 options...what are they?

You act like there is such a thing as a verdict of "innocent"!

 

Exactly..it is not up to the jury to determine innocence, it is up to them to analyze the evidence and if evidence does not meet the criteria, in their opinion, for a guilty verdict, they have a responsibility to bring in a not guilty verdict. This does not confirm the person's absolute innocence. Are you denying that there have been cases where guilty people have been found not guilty and gone free due to lack of evidence?

 

When DNA testing determined that the wrong person was convicted of a crime...they are then exonerated and deemed innocent of the crime.

 

If they are presumed "innocent" until proven guilty and they are not proven guilty then what are they?

Are they still presumed innocent?

 

I've given the legal differences from sources with the authority to explain in several of my posts already.

Once a trial commences and evidence and testimony are presented, a jury might think that the person is guilty, but will still have to acquit based upon evidence or lack thereof. Hence, we don't really believe you are innocent, but we have to deliver a verdict of not guilty. And yes, if a person is actually innocent and has proven it, they will be found not guilty, but not every not guilty verdict equates to being innocent.

 

Please, stop squirming, it's unbecoming. "Absolute innocence" is a tautology. One is either innocent with respect to a specific act, or one is not. There are no degrees. You continue to conflate the notions of legal innocence and factual reality. You are welcome to your opinion that Z was not factually innocent, but that doesn't change that for purposes of the law, and that's really all that matters in a sea of conflicting, mostly partisan opinions, HE... IS... INNOCENT. He was PROVEN legally innocent in the very instant that he was found not guilty. Innocence is a legal term with a specific meaning and a presumption of it. If you want to keep arguing "he did it," that's fine. Stupid but fine. Has NOTHING to do with his innocence or lack of it. He was found not guilty and in that finding is proven innocent as a matter of our well-settled law.

 

Example: The black community is outraged after a cop shot a punk who robbed a convenience store in Missouri. Their response to what they perceive to be injustice is to riot and loot local businesses which had nothing to do with the event. That's great. That sets a fine precedent. Way to go. How about throwing another brick at a cop's head to underscore the absolute unfairness?
So here are the details, according to Brown's accomplice, who I'm sure was coming back from a church bake sale. They were walking down the middle of the street after a friendly conversation with the convenience store owner who was politely introduced face first to his own display rack during Michael Brown's demonstration of his size and the potential for him to induce serious injury upon that mean store owner who objected to poor Mr. Brown's uncompensated removal of cigars which may or may not have been intended to be unrolled and packed with a certain euphoria inducing substance. The pair of stringently law-abiding citizens then proceeded to walk down the middle of the street from that playful encounter, at which point a very mean and very white police officer then shouted at them for no reason while they walked down the middle of the street. The nasty white cop, obviously with murder on his mind before he even arrived to the location, then attempted to open the door to his vehicle, at which point the door magically "ricocheted" off Mr. Brown's righteous bulk, but of course, it may have been that the door was aware of Mr. Brown's impenetrable aura of of law-abiding essence and decided to shut itself. The evil policeman then was able to step out of his cruiser, at which point Mr. Brown got on his knees, raised his hands, and said, "Don't shoot". The vile civil servant then took occasion to open fire on the completely innocent black person, smirking and enjoying his day, because, as all liberal media, bastions of truth that they are, will remind you, all white people aspire to become cops simply for the enjoyment of shooting completely innocent and unarmed black people for sport.

 

Yet the evidences proved otherwise.

Another racebaiting story from cpicturetaker.

Pathetic.

 

But it equates to being presumed innocent. The very definition of innocent is not guilty.

Why would you believe someone is guilty with no evidence to support it?

It is sad when you hate someone so bad you have to make up your own definition of words to crucify them.

Pitiful.

 

How ridiculous to assume that you have access to the recesses of a persons brain, No one really knows what a person is thinking or feeling and you assume that a verdict of not guilty based upon jurors that were admittedly confused by their instructions found a defendant not guilty because they were absolutely certain of what actually transpired. One juror even publicly stated that she though Zimmerman was guilty, but this is all beside the point...

I'm way past even thinking about Zimmerman when I post on this thread, I have been more focused on the subject of the difference between not guilty and innocent definitions as they are applied and defined from a legal standpoint.

 

He presented an affirmative defense and the jury agreed. Neither you nor the prosecution had evidence to refute it. You may want to wish him guilty but that don't make it so.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you miss the trial or something?

 

Then we can assume you are dismissing out of hand the testimony of this "friend" who is speaking entirely of what he thinks Zimmerman was thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

The injustice here is that it is two years later and Holder is just now having a grand jury investigate this? The FBI reported within weeks they found not evidence of racism concerning Zimmerman.

 

What a weird story. The guy doesn't recognize his own good friends voice when he calls, till years later....at which point he hints at the operation of his good friends mind two years previous but not what he actually said? Throw in death threats, two dead Sons and an ostracized Daughter influencing his judgment, and it comes up STUH'RANGE.....even for Florida.