Skip to comments.Why George Zimmerman Is Not Entitled To A Presumption Of Innocence
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 ...
Why? Because he’s too “white”.
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.'"
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.
So all that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t count anymore in the Obama regime of things?
Because I’m Too White
These kinds of people are the reason that we’re headed for CW-II.
They start messing with the constitution and they’re targets.
That's the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
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.
“So all that innocent until proven guilty doesnt count anymore in the Obama regime of things?”
Only if your name isn’t Mumia in which case, the presumption extends post conviction.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
Why no link to that website?
Liberalism is a mental DISEASE!
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.
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.
Ah, yes, I think Mexico’s justice system operates on the Napoleonic Code too.
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.
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;)
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.
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.