Michael Jackson Trial Ends

[Aragorn1]

It means the jury had reasonable doubt as to whether the charges happened.

[VhaalintheAssassin]

Sorry--didn't mean to use the word "innocent..." You're right, Seraph, in your explanation/clarification of the terms. I wasn't in the most semantic mood when I wrote it--lol. But I am sure you knew what I meant when I said "although he was found innocent"; I just meant the equivalent of "not guilty," synonymously speaking. In "lamen" speaking terms, not guilty is interchangeable with the word innocent (like if you were to teach a child what the word "innocent" means, you'd say, "It means "not guilty of something."); but in legal terms, you're right--it's different...
But I fully acknowledge the difference now--my mistake.

Cerek, thanks for your response. I felt weird writing my two cents on it, but also felt compelled. I was shortly discussing it with my buddy and I told him something I forgot to add in the last post: It is very hard to be molested and prove it; it is very frustrating to someone who is victim of it. You almost wish you were outright maliciously and aggressively attacked, so that there would be bruises, blood, scratches, semen, etc. It's tough when someone is tender and passive with their actions, because there is no evidence! It's word against word. Luckily, in my case, the person fully admitted to it.

Anyway, like Morgeruat said, about turning off the TV, etc., that's what I ended up doing. I'd rather be playing D&D! In fact, I think this concludes my tiny spell of thoughts on MJ. It was nice to just vent for a short period of time today, and now onward to run back into the dungeon and kick some butt!!

[Cloudbringer]

Personally, I expected them to let him off since the case seemed to be less than ironclad against him but still, it was a bit of a shock to see he got off on every single charge, and not even a 'contributing to the delinquency' conviction. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: Although he was found innocent by legal standards

He was found not guilty. As Cerek mentioned not guilty means something very different then innocent. Not guilty means that there wasn't a sufficient amount of evidence to convict someone of a specific crime, it doesn't say anything about if they actually committed a crime or not. Innocent would mean that they didn't actually commit any crime. [/QUOTE]This is a logical fallacy to support those who want to continue witch hunting those who are tried of a crime and found not guilty.

Yes, a jury does find someone "not guilty." There is also a legal presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Combine that presumption with a finding of "not guilty" and yet get = INNOCENT.

But, all it takes to mark someone for life is an ACCUSATION, never proof. For some reason, our minds just work that way. We like knowing an issue is "settled" and when it comes to a crime, we're happy to hang the blame on someone to sate our inner appetite for resolution and completion. Which is why the law has created presumptions to prevent us from enacting mob justice based on prejudice and bias. This is one of the sad facts of the human condition -- a fair argument supporting those who believe we are evil and vile and base.