Jussie Smollett: GUILTY. Kyle Rittenhouse: INNOCENT
America: WINNING
shareBigler Stouffer (white) killed.
Julius Jones (black) not killed.
America: LOSING
MovieChat Forums > Jussie Smollett Discussion > Jussie Smollett: GUILTY. Kyle Rittenhous...
Kyle Rittenhouse: NOT GUILTY
shareThat's the way the system works
They always say that.
It's not a technicality.
A synonym for innocent.
shareNot really.
shareIn the eyes of the law, really.
shareSorry but no. There is a difference and a reason it's worded that way, in the eyes of the law.
shareInnocent until proven guilty + a not guilty verdict = innocent. There isn't any other way to see it.
shareWrong. Not guilty means they could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a declaration of innocence. It's not the same thing. Google it, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.
shareNo way to refute my obvious logic, so you choose to ignore it completely. Please feel free to take a spoon and scoop some shit out of your dads ass, and spoon-feed yourself. I don't have time for fuckwits like you.
shareYour "logic" is a bit too obvious and simplistic. You've obviously not actually thought about it. Since you're too fucking hard headed to look it up yourself, here it is on the DOJ website.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/not-guilty-and-innocent-problem-children-reasonable-doubt
From the US Department of Justice:
"While in lay usage the term 'not guilty' is often synonymous with 'innocent,' in American criminal jurisprudence they are not the same. 'Not guilty' is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof."
The Bill of Rights trumps anything your twisted logic can produce. Scroll down to the 6th amendment, and I'll wait for your apology, if your mature enough to admit you're wrong.
https://constitution.laws.com/bill-of-rights/bill-of-rights-amendments
What are you even talking about? Are you a democrat? You think like one.
Got it, you're not mature enough to admit you are wrong, and now have blatantly ignored an undeniable truth. You are a pathetic fuck, and debate like a bitch liberal. I won, you lost, period, you're just too much of a cunt to admit it, but it doesn't matter.This is the last time I'll read or reply to anything you've written. I win, you lose, fuck off.
shareOnly a simpleton doesn’t understand the difference. Must be a Biden voter.
shareSo. If you are found guilty you did it. But if you are found not guilty you did it but they cant prove it? So according to that logic everyone always did it. Right?
shareExactly. The "innocent until proven guilty" mindset is the foundation of our legal system. So, by default, if you aren't found guilty you are innocent of the crime. I'll even allow that you might not be innocent in reality, but the qualifier "in the eyes of the law" is clearly what's being discussed.
shareDid you read the link? You guys really don't have a clue what you're talking about. In the prosecution of a crime, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The goal of the defense is not to prove innocence but to cast reasonable doubt on the state's case. If the defendant is found not guilty, that is literal in its meaning. It means the state could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is NOT a proclamation of innocence. Not guilty only equals innocence in the eyes of the layperson. It's clear you dummies never studied the law, this is a basic concept.
shareIt doesn't mean you did it but they can't prove it. It simply means they can't prove you did. This is the foundation of a fair legal system that values and protects the rights of the individual. Where the burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt. If the burden were on the defendant to prove innocence, there'd be a lot more innocent people in jail. Seriously, educate yourself on this before continuing.
shareYou’re right that the jury is not asked to make a finding of innocence considering the accused has no burden of proof. I think you’re missing the point of other posters: such burden does not exist on the accused precisely because he arrived to the verdict stage already presumed innocent. This is fundamental American common law. The presumption means innocence is established under the law until sufficient evidence is introduced by the prosecution to overcome it. I do appreciate that you’re primarily limiting your comments to the meaning of a criminal jury verdict which does not determine the existence or absence of innocence. But you also repeatedly suggest that “in the eyes of the law” Rittenhouse cannot be said to be innocent. This is not correct. He was always innocent in the eyes of the law and maintained such innocence when he walked out of the courtroom with the prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
shareSo the US Dept of Justice is misinformed?
shareNegative. The DOJ webpage was making the same completely accurate point you were making: a jury acquittal is not a verdict of innocence because the jury is not charged with issuing a verdict on that subject. However, if asked the broader question on why this is so, DOJ would have to concede that the law had always presumed the accused innocent. And thus, the only question for the jury was whether the prosecution overcame this presumption with proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
shareIt also distinguishes the difference between Kyle Rittenhouse and OJ Simpson. Both not guilty, only one was actually innocent. Not guilty ONLY means not guilty, it does not equal innocent. It only means the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The state failed to prove guilt in the Rittenhouse case because there was none. The state failed to prove guilt in the OJ Simpson trial because they were ineffective.
sharerittenhouse is a free man banging hot girls while libturds like u cry saying he is guilty. waaaaaahhhhh waaaaahhhhh waaaaahhhhh!!!!
sharePay attention son, I’m not a liberal and never said he was guilty.
shareHe's a closet liberal fuck that can't admit he's wrong even though multiple people have showed him he is. Don't waste your time, you know how these lefties are.
shareCloset liberal? You've obviously not been paying attention here. This is not a political issue either. I've not been proven wrong. I proved you wrong with the DOJ article but YOU refuse to accept it. Don't demonize me as a liberal because you're too fucking stupid to comprehend.
shareTechnically, Craig is correct. However, in this case, according to the video evidence alone, Rittenhouse is innocent of murder.
shareTechnically, he's not. I sourced the 6th amendment from the Bill of Rights to back my point. I'll trust that.
shareI'm familiar with the Bill of Rights. You go ahead and interpret them any way you want.
shareDo you agree that the basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty?
shareThat is a simpleton's answer.
The basis of our legal system is that the burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt. The defendant does not have to proof "innocence". Only cast reasonable doubt on the state's case. Hence the verdict is either guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. At many times in the past and in many places, it was the opposite. The burden of proof was on the accused. You obviously have no understanding of how laws are written and why wording is so important.
OJ was found not guilty, is he innocent? No. The state just failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I suggest you shut the fuck up and read the DOJ article again with an open mind. Stop trying so hard to be right, because you aren't.