actually, no,
the 'cant be innocent' is your nonsense
my logic is that a jury doesn't know if a person has done something or not,, they only know that there has to be certain elements 'proven; that fit the definition of a crime
so legal 'not guilty', does not mean a person has not done something,, although they may not have,,,it means that they weren't proven to
as I'm sure most adults understand,,,unless they just like arguing over stupid things
Again, learn how courts work, there is a phrase "legal definition" and using your own definition of "not guilty, until proven guilty" gives rise to the arguments above.
There is a REASON that the phrase is "INNOCENT until proven guilty"
Your logic allows for this to be true.
yes, and by this logic, every person here is a non innocent pedophile , that enough evidence hasn't presented itself to prove they are anything different
ridiculous,, right?
Now if we use the LEGAL definition(instead of made up ones to suit our own agenda)
Then the quote would be
yes, and by this logic, every person here is innocent of being a pedophile until enough evidence hasn't presented itself to prove they are one
not soridiculous,, right?
HMMM..wonder I wonder why the courts chose those words...maybe, just maybe...they knew what they were doing.
Edited by
isaac_dede
on Tue 07/26/16 09:30 AM