Ned Snow Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 That someone is not convicted of a crime does not mean that a crime was not committed. Nor does it mean that a crime was committed either. One does not prove the other either way. I swear, are some of y'all getting dumber as this thread goes on? I did qualify my statement with "in a purely legal sense." I didn't get a chance to review the evidence, and I don't know the relevant statutory language. So I don't know if a crime was or wasn't committed. I do know that the grand jury's decision means that officially, on the record, no crime was committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Every story needs a villain and it's almost never the good villagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 That someone is not convicted of a crime does not mean that a crime was not committed. Nor does it mean that a crime was committed either. One does not prove the other either way. I swear, are some of y'all getting dumber as this thread goes on?Yes, it means a crime was not committed. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. That's what it means. A little earlier in the thread, posters who tend to think like you rejected this argument from me in relation to the robbery. But the decision 100% means no crime was committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, it means a crime was not committed. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. That's what it means.A little earlier in the thread, posters who tend to think like you rejected this argument from me in relation to the robbery.But the decision 100% means no crime was committed. Right just like not guilty means the same as innocent. And the reason they don't just say innocent then is... hey look over there! :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Right just like not guilty means the same as innocent. And the reason they don't just say innocent then is... hey look over there! :leaving: Is the accused not presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt? They don't say innocent because they weren't deciding whether he was innocent. Doesn't mean he isn't presumed to be innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Right just like not guilty means the same as innocent. And the reason they don't just say innocent then is... hey look over there! :leaving:Because there was no crime to judge innocence or guilt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Is the accused not presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt? They don't say innocent because they weren't deciding whether he was innocent. Doesn't mean he isn't presumed to be innocent. They're not comprehending this... AT ALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, it means a crime was not committed. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. That's what it means.A little earlier in the thread, posters who tend to think like you rejected this argument from me in relation to the robbery.But the decision 100% means no crime was committed. No, it doesn't. You are incredibly ignorant and don't even understand what you are talking about. A crime can be committed and there not be enough evidence to convict anyone of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 No, it doesn't. You are incredibly ignorant and don't even understand what you are talking about. A crime can be committed and there not be enough evidence to convict anyone of it.When a grand jury decides to not indict, slowly for you now.. It means...they...don't...believe...a...crime...was...committed. You are clearly the ignorant party clinging to your own verdict instead of grand jury's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Because there was no crime to judge innocence or guilt The word you are looking for is "probable cause" Other then the obvious reasons situations like this are bad because they just serve to demonstrate to people who don't have much faith in the system anyway that they shouldn't even try to through the legal process its just going to screw them. I don't know maybe if police didn't to carry guns these situations wouldn't jump to "The scary black man was comming right for me" quite so quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, it means a crime was not committed. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. That's what it means.A little earlier in the thread, posters who tend to think like you rejected this argument from me in relation to the robbery.But the decision 100% means no crime was committed. http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/Nopegodzilla_zps88d8bdb9.png.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/Nopegodzilla_zps88d8bdb9.png.htmlThis guy... What does that even mean? What are you referring to by posting " nope, nope, nope". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You should read Officer Wilson's testimony. Or at least as much as you can stomach. It's literally condensed "he was a scary negro". I've gotten plenty of that from these threads and the police one. As for the rest, if a man is murdered in a forest and no one gets convicted of it, is it still a murder?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 When a grand jury decides to not indict, slowly for you now.. It means...they...don't...believe...a...crime...was...committed. You are clearly the ignorant party clinging to your own verdict instead of grand jury's. No, it means they don't believe there is a preponderance of evidence such that criminal charges should be brought. Again, you are completely and utterly ignorant of even the most basic things you are discussing. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between there not being enough evidence to convict someone and there not being a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I've gotten plenty of that from these threads and the police one. As for the rest, if a man is murdered in a forest and no one gets convicted of it, is it still a murder?!Well if he was murdered, then that would be a crime. Which would have brought an indictment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 No, it means they don't believe there is a preponderance of evidence such that criminal charges should be brought. Again, you are completely and utterly ignorant of even the most basic things you are discussing. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between there not being enough evidence to convict someone and there not being a crime.I'm ignorant huh? Answer this one question? What crime did Wilson commit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Well if he was murdered, then that would be a crime. Which would have brought an indictment. But if there was no witnesses and all evidence was sufficiently disposed of, the Grand Jury might not choose to indict. Which means there was no crime or murder, it was spontaneous death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm ignorant huh? Answer this one question? What crime did Wilson commit? No. I refuse to be the one who stricks the match that sets fire to your straw man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 But if there was no witnesses and all evidence was sufficiently disposed of, the Grand Jury might not choose to indict. Which means there was no crime or murder, it was spontaneous death! Yeah, but there were witnesses. Black witnesses that corroborated Wilson's version of events. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 There was no crime. Just a sad death. We should reflect on how we can change the dynamic of lower class youth to remove these issues from happening again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.