Armstronglivs wrote:
Armpitstrong wrote:
Thank goodness he is not guilty.
But he is guilty on Letsrun, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
But he is innocent in your mind, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armpitstrong wrote:
Thank goodness he is not guilty.
But he is guilty on Letsrun, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
But he is innocent in your mind, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But he is guilty on Letsrun, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
But he is innocent in your mind, which strangely counts for nothing in a court of law.
You don't know what is in my mind - it is beyond your reach. I don't claim Baldwin is "innocent". Innocent of what? He hasn't been charged with anything. So none of it counts within a court of law.
If he hasn't been charged with anything, that means he is innocent of everything. This isn't hard to follow. You can't be guilty until charged and tried. I thought you understood the law.
Big Card wrote:
If he hasn't been charged with anything, that means he is innocent of everything. This isn't hard to follow. You can't be guilty until charged and tried. I thought you understood the law.
Innocence presumes he has been accused or charged with something. The presumption of innocence only applies when a person has been charged. Until then, innocence - or guilt - isn't an issue. It isn't merely the law you don't understand.
No. You don't understand the English language or US law. Every American is presumed to be innocent of every crime until enough evidence is first mounted in order to charge the person. The person is still presumed to be innocent until they are found either guilty or not guilty. Would you say Rittenhouse is innocent? I am innocent of killing the people who died there. Every other American is also innocent but Rittenhouse is not guilty of the crime. Other countries can pull somebody off of the street just because they don't like them and then throw them in jail for life on fake charges without the person receiving a trial.
Armpitstrong wrote:
No. You don't understand the English language or US law. Every American is presumed to be innocent of every crime until enough evidence is first mounted in order to charge the person. The person is still presumed to be innocent until they are found either guilty or not guilty. Would you say Rittenhouse is innocent? I am innocent of killing the people who died there. Every other American is also innocent but Rittenhouse is not guilty of the crime. Other countries can pull somebody off of the street just because they don't like them and then throw them in jail for life on fake charges without the person receiving a trial.
It is clear you have no legal training. You cannot distinguish between a term used in a popular sense and how it is used legally. The presumption of innocence only applies to those faced with charges. By your argument, the virtually the whole world is "innocent" because they haven't been found guilty of offences, including offences in the US. That means we are most of us "innocent" of every crime listed in the book - in any country. That is an absurdity because our guilt or innocence is not and can not be at issue unless we are identified as a suspect and face charges. You are not "innocent" of crimes committed in my country, nor of any that I know of in yours - unless you face charges for any such crimes and your guilt or innocence thereby becomes a legal issue. What you confuse with "innocence" is irrelevance. Millions of us are simply irrelevant to any question of who is guilty or innocent of any crime. You aren't "innocent" unless you have been accused.
Furthermore it has to be established that a crime was likely committed. If there is no offence established there is no question of innocence or guilt. So far in the Baldwin shooting there is no offence, only an ongoing investigation. So in respect of the death that occurred neither guilt nor innocence are yet an issue - for anyone.
It is clear that you did not receive legal training in the US. Our system of laws is structured in such a way that every American is presumed of every crime committed. If somebody is murdered, every American is presumed to be innocent of the crime. The police gather evidence in an effort to track down the guilty party. Investigators may have three suspects who are presumed innocent until one is charged. Even after being charged, that person is presumed innocent unless found guilty in court of law. If found not guilty, it is possible that another suspect may be tried. If that suspect is found guilty, the first suspect changes from not guilty to innocent just like 300 million other Americans. I am glad that you are not allowed to practice law in the US. You are on the wrong side of guilt in every thread.
Ncaa ruler wrote:
It is clear that you did not receive legal training in the US. Our system of laws is structured in such a way that every American is presumed of every crime committed. If somebody is murdered, every American is presumed to be innocent of the crime. The police gather evidence in an effort to track down the guilty party. Investigators may have three suspects who are presumed innocent until one is charged. Even after being charged, that person is presumed innocent unless found guilty in court of law. If found not guilty, it is possible that another suspect may be tried. If that suspect is found guilty, the first suspect changes from not guilty to innocent just like 300 million other Americans. I am glad that you are not allowed to practice law in the US. You are on the wrong side of guilt in every thread.
You say - "If somebody is murdered, every American is presumed to be innocent of the crime."
Wrong. As per below.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence- "A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty."
The crucial part you continue to miss is the reference to a "defendant in a criminal trial". The presumption does not apply to anyone else. The reason for that is that they are not a "defendant in a criminal trial".
Tell me where you got your law degree. You should send it back. Oh, right - you haven't got one.
You just can't grasp that every person is presumed to be innocent of every crime. That is the foundation of the US legal system. You are not even at the starting line of the race if you can't grasp that. That is the foundation that protects Americans from being arrested without sufficient evidence.
How many pages are you idiots going to argue unimportant semantics?
Rumors are circling that Baldwin intended to shoot the director. Investigators are closing in. He is guilty of shooting two. I think he will be tried and convicted of 1st degree murder.
Ncaa ruler wrote:
You just can't grasp that every person is presumed to be innocent of every crime. That is the foundation of the US legal system. You are not even at the starting line of the race if you can't grasp that. That is the foundation that protects Americans from being arrested without sufficient evidence.
I understand that you are an ignoramus with no legal qualifications. You prove it with everything you say. Tell me how the Cornell post above that defines the presumption of innocence as it only applies to "a defendant in a criminal trial" is wrong. That means the presumption doesn't apply to every other American who isn't a defendant in a criminal trial. Basic English is beyond you, let alone legal principle.
Newkirk wrote:
Rumors are circling that Baldwin intended to shoot the director. Investigators are closing in. He is guilty of shooting two. I think he will be tried and convicted of 1st degree murder.
It is also rumoured that the moon landings were faked.
It doesn't only apply in a court. Pretty basic stuff that any lawyer could explain.
mehville wrote:
How many pages are you idiots going to argue unimportant semantics?
It is only unimportant to those who insist Baldwin must be guilty because someone died, even though no crime has been confirmed let alone anyone charged with anything. The question of his guilt or innocence doesn't arise in law until he becomes a defendant. For that to happen, there has to be a crime and he has to be charged.
Newkirk wrote:
It doesn't only apply in a court. Pretty basic stuff that any lawyer could explain.
Legally it only applies in a court. Pretty basic stuff but beyond those with no legal training.
Armstronglivs wrote:
mehville wrote:
How many pages are you idiots going to argue unimportant semantics?
It is only unimportant to those who insist Baldwin must be guilty because someone died, even though no crime has been confirmed let alone anyone charged with anything. The question of his guilt or innocence doesn't arise in law until he becomes a defendant. For that to happen, there has to be a crime and he has to be charged.
No it’s unimportant to everyone but you dumb dumbs. You’re having the same argument in circles with other idiots and it accomplishes nothing regardless of what you think about Baldwin.
Is Rittenhouse innocent? The court decided that there was no crime so he can't be innocent according to you. He also can't be not guilty if there is no crime.
Let's get it back track. I think the consensus is that Baldwin is guilty and that Armstronglivs got his degree in a country that hands them out to anyone with a sheep and pig to trade.
Ncaa ruler wrote:
Is Rittenhouse innocent? The court decided that there was no crime so he can't be innocent according to you. He also can't be not guilty if there is no crime.
The court/judge would have dismissed Rittenhouse case if there was no crime long before jury received the case. Prosecution in Rittenhouse murder case, due to rulings by Judge B. Schroeder, failed to prove Rittenhouse guilty of murder. Because prosecution was unable to prove Rittenhouse guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not make Rittenhouse innocent, simply criminally not guilty in WI county or state court. Rittenhouse is NOT innocent.