BigRedBuster Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 If someone drives drunk and for some reason within the court case on a technicality, they are found not guilty, does that mean they never drove drunk in the first place? 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said: If someone drives drunk and for some reason within the court case on a technicality, they are found not guilty, does that mean they never drove drunk in the first place? It means they weren't penalized for the crime they committed. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 22 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: This is ONLY a legal issue within our court system. It has nothing to do with how anyone else understands things. I know people who have been absolutely guilty of things but, not found guilty in court. That doesn't make them innocent with anything else other than the court system not being able to punish them. Under our system of justice, in a criminal court people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Full Stop. The public is more than welcome to believe what they want about a case or defendant. Public opinion is different than a criminal court 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Under our system of justice, in a criminal court people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Full Stop. The public is more than welcome to believe what they want about a case or defendant. Public opinion is different than a criminal court Exactly. So...what you said earlier is wrong. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Exactly. So...what you said earlier is wrong. No. In a court of law people are always innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks outside of the jury/judge. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 So to recap, Flynn was never proven innocent. Good talk. 2 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: No. In a court of law people are always innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks outside of the jury/judge. But....yes it does. His employment has very little to do with what the court says and when they have to assume they're innocent. This discussion started when you said you disagreed with Trump firing Flynn because "he was innocent". Then, you use the courts decisions to back that up. The courts have nothing to do with his employment. It has everything to do with employing people within our government that we can trust and have our country's best interest at heart. Flynn fails in every aspect of that. 2 Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 4 hours ago, Archy1221 said: If one is innocent until proven guilty and one is NEVER proven guilty, one would still be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Can you please show me where, by rule of law, never being proved guilty or not guilty comes with an eternal presumption of innocence? You've said that this is the case in the eyes of the law. If you can show me where this is said to be true then I will happily back down. By my understanding, if someone is accused of a crime, and they're never proven guilty or not guilty (i.e. the trial is thrown out) the legal presumption of innocence is gone because it is no longer relevant. They're not on trial. At that point, innocence is in the eye of the beholder and not the law, is it not? 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 16 minutes ago, Enhance said: By my understanding, if someone is accused of a crime, and they're never proven guilty or not guilty (i.e. the trial is thrown out) the legal presumption of innocence is gone because it is no longer relevant. They're not on trial. At that point, innocence is in the eye of the beholder and not the law, is it not? It’s not a Court matter at that point. However, if prosecutors decide to retry the case, are you on record as saying that defendant DOES NOT have presumption of innocence the second time around? 2 Link to comment
commando Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 the future of the republican party is arguing the difference between not guilty or innocent in a trial means you are actually innocent or protected by a complicit system. 4 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 23 minutes ago, knapplc said: I'm listening... I am all for this- good job Evan McMullen for leading the way. However please come up with a better name than these under discussion Center Right Party: to exclusive of a name. Integrity Party - they won't have the corner on Integrity and it comes across as pompous. Quote Names under consideration for a new party include the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party. If it is decided instead to form a faction, one name under discussion is the Center Right Republicans. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, TGHusker said: I am all for this- good job Evan McMullen for leading the way. However please come up with a better name than these under discussion Center Right Party: to exclusive of a name. Integrity Party - they won't have the corner on Integrity and it comes across as pompous. Yeah... Those have real strong "Legends & Leaders" vibes. 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, knapplc said: Yeah... Those have real strong "Legends & Leaders" vibes. Lets not go there Link to comment
Recommended Posts