This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
But that's not what's happening here. People are debating the difference between not guilty and innocent for academic or philosophical reasons, they're debating purely to back up their original assertion that he was guilty, and now that a jury has found him not guilty, rather than retracting their original statements, they are simply replying "well that doesn't mean he's innocent". That is the mental gymnastics I refer to, the gymnastics required to maintain their original point of view, despite a jury with access to far more information, hopefully present in a less biased form and presented in full rather than in the heavily edited "highlights" on the news and social media.
Yep get that.
Speaking for myself, completely accept the jury's verdict but he is ( in my opinion) lucky to walk away Scot-free (from a legal sense) with the information (video) that we have seen. Whether that's the failing of the CPS or something else is a whole other debate.
With respect... no, you don't. You have expressly said he's been found innocent but that doesn't mean he's not guilty... even though that is EXACTLY what it means. A verdict of "not proven" would be one of ''technical'' innocence but not guilty means NOT GUILTY. You are so sure he is guilty that his being found innocent must be a failing of the CPS, instead of the case being examined and tried and the correct verdict being reached.
I thought I said he’s been found not guilty, not “innocent” - you can’t be proved innocent.
In particular, it explains why Stokes gave testimony in the exact way that he did, he made direct reference to being under threat and fearing for his safety - obviously knowing this was the key to beating the charge.
I guess that will make the rather large legal bill coming his way a tad less painful.
That’s the thing. If you feel that you were under threat. If you feel that you were directing your anger at only your attacker. If you feel that bystanders would not have been threatened by your actions, then you are well within your rights to defend yourself. I think that’s how it goes, so not guilty.
Comments
If not, that’s what I meant.
Bizarre perception by the Daily Murdoch.
I predict a social media shitstorm!