kuzman89
Active Member
I'll try to make this simple for you:
1. I do not agree with most of what you've said.
2. I wasn't putting my opinion forward as factual evidence. Please try and understand what that means, it's not difficult if you try.
3. The distinction between being proven innocent, and not proven guilty goes beyond simple lexical semanticism. There is a fundamental difference in meaning there.
Example; you see me doing 100km/h through a 40km/h school zone. You can clearly tell I was speeding, nobody would mistake a car doing 60km/h over the limit right? You get my rego and tell the police, they take me to court and you go before the magistrate and say "I saw Danja speeding, he looked like he was doing about 100km/h", then I get up and say "I was doing 40km/h, Kuzman is mistaken, I saw him stumbling around the street, I think he was drunk". There are no other witnesses. The magistrate scratches his head and says "There is insufficient evidence to prove Danja was speeding, case dismissed". Thusly I am not found guilty, but none the less I was speeding, I am guilty, it just wasn't proven.
Do you see the difference yet?
Mate I know what you mean, despite doing it or not, the courts found him innocent. End of story.