Quote:
Originally Posted by tgiggity
Saying that one is "innocent until proven guilty" is different from saying there there is a "presumption of innocence"?
This sounds like a very important semantics argument so please go ahead, I'm all ears.
Already covered re vacated convictions but to give another example, let's say you murder someone but the cops don't have enough evidence to charge you or bring you to trial. You therefore won't be subjected to criminal charges or trial, despite your being factually guilty Af in addition to the seven more victims you left at various dump sites that the cops aren't even aware of.
This is due to you having a presumption of innocence in the absence of sufficient evidence for you to face justice. (unless they find the bloodied chainsaw you stupidly didn't clean with your dna and victims' blood all over it, then you're in a world of trouble)
It has nothing to do with actual innocence or guilt.
Quote:
Everyone is supposed to be armed if they are sitting in a car. Haven't you heard of the 2nd amendment? Guns keep people safe!!
At the same time, if someone is maybe potentially armed then it's better to execute them and try to find out if they actually had a weapon later.
'MURICAAAA
Yeah again your comparison isn't apt and no cop has been charged with "executing" anyone and hyperbole doesn't help things.