I think you might have a misunderstanding of it as well.
Not guilty does not mean innocent.
Exactly. All the evidence pointed to her committing the murder. Anyone here ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? A black man was accused of rape, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent, but he was sentenced as guilty anyways. He was still innocent.
Forgive me that I believe people making decisions that effect an entire nation are more important than a bagger at walmart.
Forgiven for thinking they make decisions. The only thing they decide to do is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from leaveittosteven »
Been noticing this phenomenon more where people who hold standards that above average are silenced while those with standards lower than average are viewed as pleasant and preferable. No wonder mass media is in such ****.
I must concur with the OP, but for different reasons. As man very dear to [not] me once said:
"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin [citation needed]
The entire thing is absolutely absurd. There are people legitimately taking offence to the heinous actions of the death of this specific child when thousands of children die each year under similar, if not, worse circumstances. It's simply bollocks.
Exactly. All the evidence pointed to her committing the murder. Anyone here ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? A black man was accused of rape, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent, but he was sentenced as guilty anyways. He was still innocent.
1. Just because all of the evidence says that she commited the murder does not mean there is enough evidence.
2. That trial was completely based of racism. This is 2011, you aren't going to get a jury of all racist assholes. And that would be assuming that racism would have had anything to do with this trial.
Exactly. All the evidence pointed to her committing the murder. Anyone here ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? A black man was accused of rape, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent, but he was sentenced as guilty anyways. He was still innocent.
I do believe that most, if not, all of the evidence was circumstantial; circumstantial evidence does not put someone away for life/death penalty.
Forgiven for thinking they make decisions. The only thing they decide to do is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected.
Throw all the **** you want at the political system. For whatever reason they do it, at the end of the day, their decisions are still effecting millions of people, while the bagger might effect a couple thousand at most.
No, it simply means there was not enough evidence to convict her. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it. If she did actually kill her, then there should be ample evidence, and the prosecution should have an easy time proving her guilt.
The prosecution could not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, she's technically innocent.
It has everything to do with it. If she did actually kill her, then there should be ample evidence, and the prosecution should have an easy time proving her guilt.
The prosecution could not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, she's technically innocent.
No, not really.
Not guilty != innocent
There've been cases in the past in which the defendants were found not guilty to the murder of person <x>, but after the trial they came out and admitted their guilt.
There've been cases in the past in which the defendants were found not guilty to the murder of person <x>, but after the trial they came out and admitted their guilt.
Considering Casey hasn't done that, then she ought to be seen as innocent.
Guilty or not, the system is flawed. I was in a case (something happened to me) and we had ample evidence to prove that the person was guilty of what he did. Even the jurors said they think he's guilty. BUT, because we didn't specify one, tiny little thing that everyone thought was obvious, he was let free.
My point is, they just didn't have enough evidence, from what I saw. Even though she lied to them, too.
Worst part is, she could flat out say she did it now, and since she can't be charged again, she won't go to jail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's a difference between "This game sucks" and "I don't like this game."
Yes.
Exactly. All the evidence pointed to her committing the murder. Anyone here ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? A black man was accused of rape, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent, but he was sentenced as guilty anyways. He was still innocent.
Forgiven for thinking they make decisions. The only thing they decide to do is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected.
The entire thing is absolutely absurd. There are people legitimately taking offence to the heinous actions of the death of this specific child when thousands of children die each year under similar, if not, worse circumstances. It's simply bollocks.
Innocent until proven guilty. According to the trial, she was not proven guilty, and thus must be considered innocent.
Better. Less heartless, but still a little careless.
1. Just because all of the evidence says that she commited the murder does not mean there is enough evidence.
2. That trial was completely based of racism. This is 2011, you aren't going to get a jury of all racist assholes. And that would be assuming that racism would have had anything to do with this trial.
No, it simply means there was not enough evidence to convict her. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it.
I do believe that most, if not, all of the evidence was circumstantial; circumstantial evidence does not put someone away for life/death penalty.
Throw all the **** you want at the political system. For whatever reason they do it, at the end of the day, their decisions are still effecting millions of people, while the bagger might effect a couple thousand at most.
It has everything to do with it. If she did actually kill her, then there should be ample evidence, and the prosecution should have an easy time proving her guilt.
The prosecution could not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, she's technically innocent.
No, not really.
Not guilty != innocent
There've been cases in the past in which the defendants were found not guilty to the murder of person <x>, but after the trial they came out and admitted their guilt.
Considering Casey hasn't done that, then she ought to be seen as innocent.
I don't necessarily agree.
Ought implies a moral obligation, and by no means are people morally obliged to consider her innocence, especially considering:
My point is, they just didn't have enough evidence, from what I saw. Even though she lied to them, too.
Worst part is, she could flat out say she did it now, and since she can't be charged again, she won't go to jail.