Delta Force's A-Squadron kills ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghd

I don't see that as a problem because we are talking about a court of law versus the court of public opinion.

A court of law doesn't make decisions as to whether or not people are criminals, rather they decide whether a person should be held responsible for specific crimes.  That is why defendants are declared "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "innocent".

The court of public opinion doesn't carry the power that a court of law does, so therefore the standard for conviction is lower.  For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of killing his wife & Ron Goldman in a court of law, but the court of public opinion was decidedly that he was guilty & was a criminal.  Even though the public viewed him this way, as an unconvicted criminal, he still had his life and his freedom.

Being an unconvincted criminal in the eyes of the public doesn't affect ones life in nearly the same way that being convicted of a crime does.

Which is fine as long as you understand what kind of discussion you're having.



Actually courts of law do determine if the behavior they're examining rises to the level of criminality. If it does, the person is labelled a "criminal" and punished accordingly. If not...well, you get the idea.



Not guilty of what?

WELL, “out there” is accurate now, but he DID spend time in prison for another crime.

I guess justice isn't as blind as some of us would like to think.

Or the influence of a tarmac visit?

I think both types of cases exist, the ones where a prosecutor makes the case that proven behavior is a crime and cases where a prosecutor makes the case that the defendant is the one who did said behavior.  In the first, you are correct, the court is trying to determine if the defendants behavior is criminal.  In the latter, it is accepted that the behavior was criminal, the court is trying to determine if the defendant was the one who did it.

The not guilty follows the same lines.  One can be not guilty of a crime because the actions he did do not reach the level of the law or statute to be considered criminal. In other scenarios,het can be found not guilty because the prosecutor was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one who committed the crime in question.

So there is the "Yes I did it, but it isn't a crime", which is different than the "It is a crime, but i'm not the one who did it".  It comes down to a case by case basis.  With Hillary, it is a given that a crime was committed and it is a given that Hillary was involved in that crime, intent not being relevant.  The choice by the DOJ to not pursue a case against her makes her an untried & unconvicted criminal.

I think there's a third: "Yes I did it, yes it's a crime, but you don't have the evidence or the balls to convict me."  I'd suggest that be called the Hillary Evasion.