OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[bigjavi973]

Bro.....no matter what the details of the case...

the details of the case DO matter. Never heard of physical evidence? Circumstantial evidence?

how many people already have been proven to be wrongfully convicted?

They get a new trial, because new evidence was found that someone else actually did the crime. But according to your thinking, hes not innocent regardless

[travestyny]

the details of the case DO matter. Never heard of physical evidence? Circumstantial evidence?

how many people already have been proven to be wrongfully convicted?

They get a new trial, because new evidence was found that someone else actually did the crime. But according to your thinking, hes not innocent regardless

Again, you're not following what I'm saying to you.


The point of me showing you that was to prove my point. Not guilty does not mean innocent.


In that case he was found not guilty. But...he was not innocent.

Get it?

You can't just keep pulling excuses out of your ass. It's made this conversation very dull.

[bigjavi973]

Again, you're not following what I'm saying to you.


The point of me showing you that was to prove my point. Not guilty does not mean innocent.


In that case he was found not guilty. But...he was not innocent.

Get it?

You can't just keep pulling excuses out of your ass. It's made this conversation very dull.

and again.....

the same standard can be applied to a case the prosecution declines to go to trial


they can have circumstantial evidence (which usually isnt enough to prove a conviction or guilt) but they take it to court anyway.

The prosecution tries their hardest, but the person is then found not guilty (mainly because the timing doesnt add up to the jurors ei: person's alibi)

the person is ADAMANT that they are innocent, where not in the area and was not found guilty by a jury of their peers.


but somehow, hes not innocent either, according to you.

[travestyny]

and again.....

the same standard can be applied to a case the prosecution declines to go to trial


they can have circumstantial evidence (which usually isnt enough to prove a conviction or guilt) but they take it to court anyway.

The prosecution tries their hardest, but the person is then found not guilty (mainly because the timing doesnt add up to the jurors ei: person's alibi)

the person is ADAMANT that they are innocent, where not in the area and was not found guilty by a jury of their peers.


but somehow, hes not innocent either, according to you.

You're trying to be slick here. Now it seems like you're trying to say if a person is found not guilty, that might mean that they were innocent. No buddy. The point of the conversation is you're saying not guilty means innocent. I've shown you over and over that you're wrong.

You're really hard headed, you know that? I can't keep telling you the same thing over and over. I think now every time you reply, I'll just hit you with another link that says you're wrong.

Here we go again!

Denniston went on to explain the difference between “factual guilt” and “legal innocence,” a distinction that a number of commentators have drawn in the aftermath of the not-guilty verdict: Just because you’re found “not guilty” doesn’t mean that you’re “innocent.”

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...-casey-anthony

I haven't seen any links from you saying you're right. Show me those links that say not guilty means the person is factually innocent.

[travestyny]

and again.....

This should be the end of this. From a legal dictionary. Just let it go now.

Acquittal
Definition
At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal

[bigjavi973]

You're trying to be slick here. Now it seems like you're trying to say if a person is found not guilty, that might mean that they were innocent. No buddy. The point of the conversation is you're saying not guilty means innocent. I've shown you over and over that you're wrong.

You're really hard headed, you know that? I can't keep telling you the same thing over and over. I think now every time you reply, I'll just hit you with another link that says you're wrong.

Here we go again!





I haven't seen any links from you saying you're right. Show me those links that say not guilty means the person is factually innocent.

its actually quite simple:

a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”


its right there in the constitution


https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws

[bigjavi973]

This should be the end of this. From a legal dictionary. Just let it go now.

we are not talking about acquittals.

we are talking about being found not guilty, due to lack of physical evidence.... ei: such as Oj's glove not fitting, the other case we spoke about the bullet not even being found and that the dude is bat**** crazy.

I know about the acquittal process

[1bad65]

its actually quite simple:

a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”


its right there in the constitution


https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws

That's the ball game right there.

But of course he wont let it go because he's a mental defective who just has to 'win' no matter how long it takes.


Trust me, you have to either ban him or just stop and let him have the last word and of course his latest 'win'.

You can stop now, or tomorrow, or next week. Or you can go on for years. But you cant outlast him.

This is his life.

[1bad65]

we are not talking about acquittals.

Exactly.

Again, there weren't even charges, likely because there is no evidence.


But those facts and 200+ years of jurisprudence are moot, because Travesty is never wrong. Ever.

We've all seen the clown claim 'wins' for tens of thousands of posts now.

But ask him to cite one instance of him 'losing'.

I'll guarantee he cant.

[travestyny]

its actually quite simple:

a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”


its right there in the constitution


https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws

Once again, innocent until proven guilty is actually the presumption of innocence.


And what it means is that you don't have to prove that you are innocent in court.

presumption | prəˈzəm(p)SH(ə)n |
noun
1 an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain

You're hung up on legal innocence, which is not factually whether the person is guilty or not. Presumption. Treat the person as if they are innocent, though it is not known for certain if the person is innocent. Just by knowing what presumption means, it's clear that innocence was not proven.


Now I've given you 3 examples, 3 links, one legal dictionary entry, and you still can't get it.


But since you're hung up on the presumption of innocence, maybe this will help you to understand.

Let me let you in on a little secret: the presumption of innocence is a legal construct. Yes, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that people are presumed innocent – if they have been charged with an offense.

You see, the presumption of innocence operates in our courts of law to protect people charged with crimes from the power of the state to deprive them of their liberty. It does not operate to immunize political leaders from scrutiny.

In short, the presumption of innocence is a procedural protection to ensure fairness – not a moral imperative. This is why we do not automatically convict and sentence a self-admitted murderer whose crime is clearly captured on video. Even where guilt is plainly obvious, proper procedures must be followed and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But the presumption of innocence does not mean someone is factually blameless until proven otherwise.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/pres...ence-1.4509334

Are we done yet?