Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He was found innocent. By the jury. Simple isn't it? None of the rest of that post needed.
If you're going to be a smartass, you ought to make sure you have both parts of the word in mind. As it stands, you've only got the latter, but you managed to misplace part of 'jackhammer' to go with it.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually he was found not guilty, not neccisarily the same. They found that there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.However, by declaring him not guilty, as opposed to innocent, he could still be brought up on civil charges (at least in some states, I'm not sure about California at the moment).
For example, O.J. simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers for the murder of Nicole and Goldman. However, during the civil trial I believe he was found responsible for the murder of Nicole Brown.
This debate has raged before in the first 30 odd pages of this debate. I don't wanna get into it all over again.
Yes, because the civil standard is balance of probabilities.
He was found not guilty of criminal charges. Therefore, he is innocent of them.
in·no·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt)
adj.
Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
I rest my case.
Originally posted by FeceMan
*Points to KharmaDog's post.*If you're going to be a smartass, you ought to make sure you have both parts of the word in mind. As it stands, you've only got the latter, but you managed to misplace part of 'jackhammer' to go with it.
All that effort for an unfunny quip. Not to mention irrelevant.
I'm not guilty- I'm innocent. Literally all there is to it.
But let's continue trying to weasel around a dictionary definition of a word for the next three pages shall we.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, because the civil standard is balance of probabilities.He was found not guilty of criminal charges. Therefore, he is innocent of them.
in·no·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt)
adj.Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
I rest my case.
Yes, nay.
All 'not guilty' means is that there was reasonable doubt that he committed the accused crimes.
seems like you're trying to weasel the secondary meaning to run synonymous with the first.
as i said before, the decision of the court, and the fact of guilt or innocence are often the same but are not directly related.
wealth distorts justice, as it also attracts negative attention.
either way, there is so much bulshit on MJ's side and golddigging on the prosecution;s side that there is no telling at all.
o.j. killed his wife. he slit her throught and damn near decapitated her. the same state tried him, f***ed up the evidence and hired a frikin nazi to lead the investigation. these factors led to a cold blooded murderer being set free. but he was found 'not guilty'
by the court. does that mean he didnt do it?
*** I KNOW that proves nothing, so please dont run with that. the point i'm making is when you shine the brightest of media spotlights on one of the most famous trials in the world with the most famous pop star in the word who has the highest paid lawyers in the world defending him against the scummiest golddiggers in the world...
what you have left is a mile high mountain of bullshit with the truth burried somewhere within in.
the truth will never be known...only assumed...thus this thread
Originally posted by FeceMan
Nay.Yes, nay.
All 'not guilty' means is that there was reasonable doubt that he committed the accused crimes.
Whereby the evidential standard is unfulfilled, and the accused remains innocent of the crime.
Someone is accused of a crime. They are innocent until proven guilty.
How do we prove them guilty, you ask?
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt (evidential standard) that the crime was committed, and therefore discharge the evidential burden.
Can't do it? (IE there is still a reasonable doubt): accused is innocent of said crime- their guilt has not been proved.
Not sure why these lengths are necessary to prove this simple point, but there you go.
Originally posted by PVS
seems like you're trying to weasel the secondary meaning to run synonymous with the first.
How do you possibly come to the conclusion, that
'Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges. '
is the SECONDARY meaning of the word? Where did you pull that deduction from?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This isn't my debate now, but just thought I'd let you know, he has a law degree.So wouldn't go telling him what the law is if I were you.
Just a thought.
-AC
ok so who gets the cookie? him for earning the degree or you for running and getting him to debate for you?
really, wtf does it matter? unless he's psychic his guess is as good as ours 😬
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
How do you possibly come to the conclusion, that'Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges. '
is the SECONDARY meaning of the word? Where did you pull that deduction from?
in·no·cent
1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
2.Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
must we split hairs now?
Originally posted by PVS
ok so who gets the cookie? him for earning the degree or you for running and getting him to debate for you?really, wtf does it matter? unless he's psychic his guess is as good as ours 😬
GETTING him to debate? I didn't even know he was still browsing these forums until recently.
Such a foolish deduction. Especially seeing as A) We both know I need no one to debate for me, which leads me to believe you said that out of hurt and B) I could say the exact same thing about you, but I don't because that would be childish and pointless.
-AC
Before the next random reply: allow me to quote myself-
'Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He was found innocent. By the jury. '
Watch this:
Option (a)'He was found Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child
Option (b) 'He was found Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Bonus points for the person that can see to which meaning I was referring.
i understand that victor
and im not trying to manipulate meaning, but instead trying to prevent such manipulation.
will you be so bold as to tell me that guilty people are always found out and innocent people are always set free? of coarse you know thats bullshit. now explain that to AC, because when i tried to explain this to him, the flesh on my fingers damn near wore off to the bone from all the typing, and to no avail.
jackson has been found not guilty. fine
IS jackson not guilty? who the f*** knows
there, is that just so unreasonable?
Originally posted by PVS
i understand that victorand im not trying to manipulate meaning, but instead trying to prevent such manipulation.
will you be so bold as to tell me that guilty people are always found out and innocent people are always set free? of coarse you know thats bullshit. now explain that to AC, because when i tried to explain this to him, the flesh on my fingers damn near wore off to the bone from all the typing, and to no avail.
jackson has been found not guilty. fine
IS jackson not guilty? who the f*** knows
there, is that just so unreasonable?
It's not unreasonable- however, it's not what I meant, as posted above.
Originally posted by PVS
now explain that to AC, because when i tried to explain this to him, the flesh on my fingers damn near wore off to the bone from all the typing, and to no avail.
Let's not over-exaggerate here.
Let's certainly not take the road of "AC wasn't laying down, despite being well within rights, so I'll pretend he didn't get it" either.
I can't legally pin things down as well as him because I don't have a law degree, despite me saying more or less the same thing.
-AC