You said “there’s no need to determine his innocence, as he is fucking innocent”. That seems a lot stronger than “innocent until proven guilty”.
Courts never determine innocence. That’s not necessary, as it’s presumed that someone is innocent. As there is insufficient evidence to prove Wilson guilty, that presumption holds.
Without a trial, I don’t see how it does. He wasn’t found “Not Guilty”.
He doesn’t have to be. He’s not guilty by default.
As there’s been no trial, he doesn’t need to be found guilty. He’s innocent, just as innocent as you or I. It’s been determined that there’s not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict at trial, in any case.
As a legal fact, we are obliged to respect the presumption of innocence, we are not obliged to tailor our opinions accordingly.
You can hold whatever opinions you like, but to hold them without evidence, or indeed in the face of contradictory evidence, invites ridicule. To act on such opinions, however, is something that should not be done.
“Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is different from “innocent”. And “unindicted” is neither. We know that a GJ failed to indict after perhaps the most unusual charade in the history of American jurisprudence. You are welcome to be satisfied with the righteousness of this result, but many, many intelligent and informed people disagree.
No, it’s not. Any state, other than proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is innocent. There’s been occasional exceptions, but as a matter of course that proof can only occur in court.
In this particular case, there’s not even sufficient evidence to take it to court, so there’s no possibility that he’s not innocent. Barring, of course, new evidence surfacing.
That last, by the way, is one important reason for not taking someone to court when guilt can’t be proved. It would prevent the possibility of conviction if, in the future, it did become possible to prove guilt.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is not a meaningless platitude or legal technicality, it’s a fundamental basis of how we should treat people.
Do you feel that the product of the grand jury proceeding is legitimate, given your estimation that the ADAs misrepresentation of the relevant law was “very poor”?
Evidently that doesn’t apply on this board. Just look at the accusations in another thread of other posters being rapists.
Nothing is true until a jury has decided it’s true, and no jury has ever been wrong.
I’m not going to base my judgement of the legitimacy of the proceedings on feelings. It’s not an issue where feelings are relevant.
Well, who even needs a jury? Clearly, once the internet has declared someone guilty, it is undeniably true and we can proceed straight ahead to the execution; stuff like “grand jury investigations” and “fair trials” are just legalistic mumbo-jumbo designed to get evil people off the hook.
Would a trial make any difference? The protesters were intent on protesting, and the rioters were determined to riot. A trial would just drag the whole thing out longer, wouldn’t it? Assuming he would have been found not guilty anyway, it’s probably cheaper and safer for the community to get it over with quickly.
A truly transparent process, with a prosecutor genuinely prosecuting, would have given an acquittal a gravitas that the secret, half-assed and subverted GJ effort lacked.
It wouldn’t have satisfied everone, but it wouldn’t have made no difference, either. Most particularly, I think, good cops would not have been as undermined and endangered in the aftermath, as they are now.
Really, “the most unusual”?
ABC News chief legal affairs anchor Dan Abrams said there is precedent for prosecutors presenting cases to grand juries without recommending charges, particularly high profile, controversial cases.
“I’m not going to dispute with you on the facts, but let’s talk about the process and the law, which is that there are a lot of high profile cases, and I’ve seen them, where prosecutors say, ‘You know what, I’m going to hand this one to the grand jury. I want the political cover on this one. I want to let them decide so I’m not the one who takes the heat on this decision,’” he said.
“So it is not sort of out of left field that in a high profile case a prosecutor hands it off to a grand jury to make that decision,” he said.
So - not so “unusual”, is it?
So a show trial, in other words.
How do you convince people it’s a fair trial when they’ve already decided there is no such thing as a fair trial and it’s all lies, lies, lies.
Is English your second language? I’m sorry. Let me explain what it means when someone asks “Do you feel that the product of the grand jury was legitimate. …” The word “feel” in that sentence is not actually asking about your emotions or your “feelings”.
That sentence means “Are you of the opinion that…” or essentially “Do you think…”.
Now that you are educated and won’t make such an embarrassing misinterpretation, can you answer my question? That is, given that you THINK the ADAs misrepresentation of the law was “very poor”, do you THINK that the result of the grand jury process is legitimate?
Do you understand the question better now?