Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why George Zimmerman Is Not Entitled To A Presumption Of Innocence
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com ^ | 04/23/2012

Posted on 04/23/2012 10:23:04 AM PDT by Sasparilla

That is, at least according to one liberal website posting.1 Here's the disturbing comment found on that website, "… there is no constitutional right to the presumption of innocence."

It's amazing that those who clamor for full Constitutional rights for Guantanamo terrorists are the same ones who are ready to take Zimmerman's head now. This is evidence enough to make an observer believe that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The writer must have slept through Civics or Government class. Or, maybe the writer is a victim of public school education. Or, perhaps both occurred.

Most of those on that website and others don't understand the concept of the presumption of Zimmerman's innocence, unless and until he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by jury.

Many liberals are accusing conservatives of defending George Zimmerman to the detriment of Trayvon Martin. No, if Zimmerman is guilty, then so be it. Conservatives, by and large, are actually defending the right of a trial by jury and not one by a torch and pitchfork carrying mob at midnight.

This "Presumption of innocence" right derives from the Constitution's 6th Amendment, that states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

It also derives from common law, and state law.

Here is the actual Florida jury instruction mandated by Florida Law for criminal trials.

"2.03 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY...

(Excerpt) Read more at armedselfdefense.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; constitution; cwii; democrats; georgezimmerman; liberalfascism; liberals; lping; trayvon; trayvonmartin; zimmerman

1 posted on 04/23/2012 10:23:13 AM PDT by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

Why? Because he’s too “white”.


2 posted on 04/23/2012 10:33:38 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
Known as the 'father of modern American radicalism,' Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. ... Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. … Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

.

3 posted on 04/23/2012 10:42:33 AM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

And, these are the same exalted, ‘I’m smarter than conservatives’, liberal thinkers who are convinced they can pander to the Muslims for love just like the do to the NAACP and th New Black Panties.


4 posted on 04/23/2012 10:45:36 AM PDT by arrdon (Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

So all that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t count anymore in the Obama regime of things?


5 posted on 04/23/2012 10:53:48 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Because I’m Too White
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BCVemYOmqY


6 posted on 04/23/2012 10:56:16 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

These kinds of people are the reason that we’re headed for CW-II.

They start messing with the constitution and they’re targets.

Period.


7 posted on 04/23/2012 11:13:47 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
Here's the disturbing comment found on that website, "… there is no constitutional right to the presumption of innocence."

That's the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

8 posted on 04/23/2012 11:45:56 AM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
"Here's the disturbing comment found on that website, "… there is no constitutional right to the presumption of innocence."

Without the context of this statement we can't make a judgement about whether it's correct.

The presumption of innocence is a legal concept, and applies in a court of law. It does not apply to the general public and our own private opinions about a case.

If the writer was saying that he was not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law, then clearly he was wrong. If the writer was suggesting that we the public have no obligation to assume innocence until the legal system decides the case, then he was right.

Just as we are not required to pretend that Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson are innocent just because they were acquited, we are also not required to suspend judgement of an accused before trial. It might be better to do that, but there's no entitlement to a presumption of innocence in the eyes of the public. Only in the eyes of the law.

9 posted on 04/23/2012 11:47:53 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

“So all that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t count anymore in the Obama regime of things?”

Only if your name isn’t Mumia in which case, the presumption extends post conviction.


10 posted on 04/23/2012 11:52:29 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee

Applause to you for keeping us aware of how the Left almost ALWAYS uses Alinsky. The man who styles himself “President” was raised on that demonic stuff.


11 posted on 04/23/2012 11:57:59 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

Technically, they’re right. There is no explicit constitutional right to be presumed innocent. While that right can be inferred from the Sixth Amendment (and elements of the Fifth and Fourth as well), it is not spelled out. Presumption of innocence (and burden of proof) are legal doctrines that have arisen out of common law and established precedent. As you point out, they must be universally applied if one is to claim “due process” has been served.


12 posted on 04/23/2012 12:02:46 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
Here's the disturbing comment found on that website, "… there is no constitutional right to the presumption of innocence."

WTF...didn't that BLOGGER ever read the constitution??? I guess if a black shot a white....he would be innocent.

Stupid Liberals love to make things up!!!

13 posted on 04/23/2012 12:34:25 PM PDT by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

Florida should give a medal to Zimmerman for saving them a bunch of taxpayer dollars. The thug-in-training Trayvon was on his way to becoming a guest of the state prison system.


14 posted on 04/23/2012 12:39:50 PM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Like many things, the “presumption” originates from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law and a right.

Any case challenging the Constitutionality of the “presumption” in the Supreme Court would probably be voted down at least 5 to 4

The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

Another concept not in the Constitution, but has been upheld as a Constitutional right is interstate travel.

There is no “Right” to travel between the states in the Constitution. It does not contain the word “travel” in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

But, the Supreme Court has said, “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745,

The same goes for the presumption of innocence.


15 posted on 04/23/2012 12:42:46 PM PDT by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
Here's the disturbing comment found on that website, "… there is no constitutional right to the presumption of innocence."

Why no link to that website?

16 posted on 04/23/2012 12:49:28 PM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

Liberalism is a mental DISEASE!


17 posted on 04/23/2012 12:51:43 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Follow the money on both sides of the border.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

I just copied the comment to my notes. Not directly linked because it was in a comment among hundreds and I could not find it up when I tried to find it link to it for the blog. It was a comment to this ultra liberal site link.
1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/george-zimmerman-bail-release-sanford-florida-jail_n_1444296.html


18 posted on 04/23/2012 1:00:08 PM PDT by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
That's the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Also, "presumed guilty until proven innocent" is the basis of France's Napoleonic Code.

Works great for those in power to maintain "order"; not so great for dispensing actual justice.

19 posted on 04/23/2012 1:42:30 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Ah, yes, I think Mexico’s justice system operates on the Napoleonic Code too.


20 posted on 04/23/2012 2:08:33 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I do believe you’re right.

No idea why they didn’t get rid of that when Benito Juarez executed His Imperial Majesty Don Maximiliano I, By the Grace of God and will of the people, Emperor of Mexico.


21 posted on 04/23/2012 2:17:20 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

(Just as long as you don’t land in Newark, JFK or LaGuardia with a handgun in your checked baggage/s;)


22 posted on 04/23/2012 8:54:29 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen

Alot of lefties agree with the police and government: They have progressed beyond the constitution now. It’s really ugly how stupid and dangerous these people are.


23 posted on 04/23/2012 9:11:14 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson