4 ms·

> there's no question that is legally assault. So, in the US, being convicted of a crime requires the state to convince a jury of your peers that you're guilty

> there's no question that is legally assault. So, in the US, being convicted of a crime requires the state to convince a jury of your peers that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what crime is. There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty". That's the point of the system, so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty. Because there's no way for him to prove his innocence to you, you've already decided he's guilty and already decided to ignore proof to the contrary. What's not in doubt is that he threw a sandwich at the officer. But, and this is incredibly important, that WAS NOT assault.

JohnFen 1y ago
> There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty". So you're saying that juries never convict innocent people? I don't think that's supportable by the evidence. > so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty. I didn't claim that he's a criminal. I said he obviously performed the act. No need to get personal. As I said, I agree with the jury and if I were on the jury I would have voted "not guilty" as well.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
chucksta 1y ago
You need to read up on the difference between a charge, a crime, and a conviction. You are found "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt during a trial . This can happen because the evidence was insufficient, improperly obtained, or the jury was not convinced by the evidence presented. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as being found "innocent"; it simply means the state did not meet the legal burden of proof required for a conviction What happened is they did not meet the burden of proof it was assault

JohnFen 1y ago

> There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty". So you're saying that juries never convict innocent people? I don't think that's supportable by the evidence. > so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty. I didn't claim that he's a criminal. I said he obviously performed the act. No need to get personal. As I said, I agree with the jury and if I were on the jury I would have voted "not guilty" as well.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

chucksta 1y ago

You need to read up on the difference between a charge, a crime, and a conviction. You are found "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt during a trial . This can happen because the evidence was insufficient, improperly obtained, or the jury was not convinced by the evidence presented. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as being found "innocent"; it simply means the state did not meet the legal burden of proof required for a conviction What happened is they did not meet the burden of proof it was assault