"A lack of indictment is NOT an acquittal, it is NOT a statement of innocence"
It is not a statement of guilt either. If you are not charged with a crime, innocence or guilt are a moot point. But, in this country, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So if he was charged by the GJ, how many would suggest that it doesn't mean he is guilty? They viewed the evidence and decided there was nothing to charge him with, I would have to say that leans more towards innocence, but I get your point.
Correct, and last I checked, nobody was ever claiming it to be such. I was addressing people that keep holding up the lack of indictment as evidence of him "not having committed a crime", and it absolutely is NOT the case.
The grand juries' decisions have ZERO implications regarding his guilt -or- innocence. As long as people can get this through their skulls and stop trying to hold it up as meaning anything at all other than they didn't feel they had enough to pursue prosecution, then I don't need to re-post what I wrote.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the trial process. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with any other aspect. Not the media. Not Joe Smith on the street talking to his buddy. Nothing. People discussing how they feel about it are NOT bound by that, at all. We are not courts. For some, what they've read in the accusations is enough to form an opinion that, at the very least, the dude is a scumbag. For others, they look at the accusations and the testimony and they feel there isn't enough there. Period.
