• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Not Guilty = Innocent

RBuley

Member
Fred Van Valkenburg and all those who imply that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the Defendant is innocent are wrong: See: http://www.politicalmontana.com/?p=936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saying that JJ was only found not guilty, not innocent is ridiculous. A jury has no option to find innocent. Fred is implying that the jury screwed up or that JJ is guilty of something. Neither is true as a matter of law.
 
so if j.j. had been found guilty would than means he's not innocent? we should just take the jury's verdict as a fact? do you believe o.j. simpson was innocent?

presumed innocent doesn't equal innocent. if you're just presuming something you're acknowledging that you don't know, but will wait to see what happens. "i'll just presume the game will start on time, but i don't know until it actually happens."
 
getgrizzy said:
so if j.j. had been found guilty would than means he's not innocent? we should just take the jury's verdict as a fact? do you believe o.j. simpson was innocent?

presumed innocent doesn't equal innocent. if you're just presuming something you're acknowledging that you don't know, but will wait to see what happens. "i'll just presume the game will start on time, but i don't know until it actually happens."

OK gwen, time for your nap, or better yet a long vacation, one way ticket, the works. :coffee:
 
PolsonGrizFan said:
getgrizzy said:
so if j.j. had been found guilty would than means he's not innocent? we should just take the jury's verdict as a fact? do you believe o.j. simpson was innocent?

presumed innocent doesn't equal innocent. if you're just presuming something you're acknowledging that you don't know, but will wait to see what happens. "i'll just presume the game will start on time, but i don't know until it actually happens."

OK gwen, time for your nap, or better yet a long vacation, one way ticket, the works. :coffee:

BOOM!
 
Dudes, getgrizzy is not an idiot. Her negative disposition towards this is part of her “e-shtick” on pretty much everything, and you are taking the bait.
 
Trying to frame the situation just to fit your own political needs is BS Fred and you know it.

Being found NOT GUILTY does equal being INNOCENT as best we can prove in the United States of America.

Just as if JJ had been found GUILTY he would also have been shown to be GUILTY as best we can in the USA.


There are cases of people, specifically a college football player being accused, then jailed. Then having the chick recant later saying it was revenge. And unfortunately Im sure there are cases of people being guilty and not getting the found guilty.

But we as a community, you as the prosecutor and anyone else other than the 2 specific people involved will have to respect the jurys findings as its the best we can do without god like powers of vision and sight.

Feminazis like Gwen Florio and the pussycat fans on here bitching simply would not accept ANY VERDICT OTHER THAN GUILTY no matter what the evidence says to the contrary. And Fred, stop being a whiny bitch you had no case and lost thats it. Retire.
 
RBuley said:
Fred Van Valkenburg and all those who imply that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the Defendant is innocent are wrong: See: http://www.politicalmontana.com/?p=936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saying that JJ was only found not guilty, not innocent is ridiculous. A jury has no option to find innocent. Fred is implying that the jury screwed up or that JJ is guilty of something. Neither is true as a matter of law.
for your first post that was pretty damn good :thumb:
 
NorthEndZoneDan said:
RBuley said:
Fred Van Valkenburg and all those who imply that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the Defendant is innocent are wrong: See: http://www.politicalmontana.com/?p=936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saying that JJ was only found not guilty, not innocent is ridiculous. A jury has no option to find innocent. Fred is implying that the jury screwed up or that JJ is guilty of something. Neither is true as a matter of law.
for your first post that was pretty damn good :thumb:
Going by his name, this guy is a pretty well known attorney here in town, and getgrizzly is trying to make his silly argument to him.
 
NorthEndZoneDan said:
RBuley said:
Fred Van Valkenburg and all those who imply that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the Defendant is innocent are wrong: See: http://www.politicalmontana.com/?p=936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saying that JJ was only found not guilty, not innocent is ridiculous. A jury has no option to find innocent. Fred is implying that the jury screwed up or that JJ is guilty of something. Neither is true as a matter of law.
for your first post that was pretty damn good :thumb:

Good to see another lawyer on eGriz! :D
 
If you believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, a jury finding of not guilty means the person's innocent.

It's only when you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent that a jury finding of not guilty is not enough to prove their innocence.
 
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, therefor, he is.....

edit: ^^^wizard
 
br fan said:
If you believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, a jury finding of not guilty means the person's innocent.

It's only when you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent that a jury finding of not guilty is not enough to prove their innocence.

Bingo!

Hence why Gwen Florio and all the ultra feminists (aka Femi-Nazis), my fellow democrats who simply hate football, and just flat out stupid people who dont care enough to use their brains will always believe any football player is guilty of a crime no matter what evidence is given to the contrary.

Though I do stereo type Gwen as a "Femi-Nazi" I do so based on her REPEATED actions in public and in her attempts to influence public policy through her writing. She was even given an award by Lee Enteprises for influencing public opinion and local city policy with her writing about unfounded rape allegations recently.

Award Link - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gwen%20florio%20missoulian%20award&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Flee.net%2Fnewsreleases%2Fpdf%2FLee%2520NR%2520Pres%2520Awards%2520102512.pdf&ei=l_Y0UZm1C4-HqwGOyoD4BA&usg=AFQjCNEnD3WqEgPkibbSwfd3YWHx4MdOjA&bvm=bv.43148975,d.aWM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The American legal system states that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If he cannot be proven guilty, he is presumed innocent.
A not guilty verdict does mean he should be considered innocent, therefore not guilty equals innocent.
 
Im sure this fellow Banks would have something to say about its well on the other side of the coin.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7967794/ex-usc-trojans-recruit-exonerated-rape-conviction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So one could argue even if JJ had been convicted it was BS as well. This fellow is a case and point. But just like Banks you cant prove it one way or the other without literally being right there when it happened. This man would have spent 5 years in prison and been labled a sex offender FOR LIFE because of the selfish actions of the accuser.

But unless we are going to dismantle the US legal system please let me know how wrongful cases such as this Banks could be avoided? And on top how can anyone do this to another human being and NOT be accountable? Even if the accuser was 15 at the time is outrageous she would skip off with 1.5 million dollars and this young man has his life destroyed.

We will have to wait and see if the accuser in this case in Missoula follows through on her calls to law firms that specialize in milking money from cases such as this. I would be suprised if she doesnt follow through on what she started.
 
Tokyogriz said:
Im sure this fellow Banks would have something to say about its well on the other side of the coin.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7967794/ex-usc-trojans-recruit-exonerated-rape-conviction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So one could argue even if JJ had been convicted it was BS as well. This fellow is a case and point. But just like Banks you cant prove it one way or the other without literally being right there when it happened. This man would have spent 5 years in prison and been labled a sex offender FOR LIFE because of the selfish actions of the accuser.

But unless we are going to dismantle the US legal system please let me know how wrongful cases such as this Banks could be avoided? And on top how can anyone do this to another human being and NOT be accountable? Even if the accuser was 15 at the time is outrageous she would skip off with 1.5 million dollars and this young man has his life destroyed.

We will have to wait and see if the accuser in this case in Missoula follows through on her calls to law firms that specialize in milking money from cases such as this. I would be suprised if she doesnt follow through on what she started.

She would get crucified in a civil case. Even with the rape shield laws and judge protecting her, the jury and most twitter followers saw through the allegations. While I don't know for sure, I assume rape shield don't apply in a civil case. I can't imagine that she would pursue a civil case.
 
PlayerRep said:
Tokyogriz said:
Im sure this fellow Banks would have something to say about its well on the other side of the coin.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7967794/ex-usc-trojans-recruit-exonerated-rape-conviction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So one could argue even if JJ had been convicted it was BS as well. This fellow is a case and point. But just like Banks you cant prove it one way or the other without literally being right there when it happened. This man would have spent 5 years in prison and been labled a sex offender FOR LIFE because of the selfish actions of the accuser.

But unless we are going to dismantle the US legal system please let me know how wrongful cases such as this Banks could be avoided? And on top how can anyone do this to another human being and NOT be accountable? Even if the accuser was 15 at the time is outrageous she would skip off with 1.5 million dollars and this young man has his life destroyed.

We will have to wait and see if the accuser in this case in Missoula follows through on her calls to law firms that specialize in milking money from cases such as this. I would be suprised if she doesnt follow through on what she started.

She would get crucified in a civil case. Even with the rape shield laws and judge protecting her, the jury and most twitter followers saw through the allegations. While I don't know for sure, I assume rape shield don't apply in a civil case. I can't imagine that she would pursue a civil case.
If she did file a civil suit could her testimony from this trial where she told Paoli she wouldn't sue JJ, the U or the Football program be used against her in any way?




Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
What jumped out at me at Valkenburg's response is either the 12 duly chosen jurors were too stupid to find JJ guilty or his staff was too incompetent to put a case together to get the outcome he wanted.
 
Well he knew his staff was incompetent because: A) He didn't do anything on the trial
B) He had a pro bono private atty come in and do most
of the heavy lifting.
C)He didn't let anyone from his office speak to the media
until at least four hours later.

;)
 
Spot on, Rich. Sounds like the Missoula County attorney forgot Johnson was innocent from the start. If he doesn't understand that essential presumption of American justice, is he fit to hold office?
Good commentary on the Missoulian's politicalmontana blogspot. Will that appear in print, also?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top