I can't believe I'm responding to this...and reread your first sentence. Proofreading is your friend, even what you are generally an incoherent ranter.
Charges being dismissed are not an indication of guilt or innocence. They are an indication of a lack of sufficient evidence to convict. Dismissal doesn't mean that charges cannot be refiled upon the discovery of new evidence, either.
As to innocence, the courts cannot determine if you are innocent, only you truly know that for certain. The courts can say that you don't meet the criteria to be determined guilty but that doesn't equate to innocent.
A judge can also dismiss a case on the onset, if the judge feels that the DA had no valid grounds to prosecute. That doesn't even find someone innocent, it just comes a lot closer than an acquittal does. The only time that a court can actually call someone innocent is if they really did not do it, AND the real perp is discovered.
It's neither true nor false.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a shorthand way of saying the following: In the context of a criminal trial (and nowhere else), the jury (and no one else) must presume the defendant to be innocent until the prosecution proves the defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution meets that burden, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty.
First of all, the police don't "proceed to trial." Second, you're missing a step here. Once a person has been arrested on suspicion of having committed some crime, the next step is to determine whether or not criminal charges will be filed. That decision is made by the prosecuting attorney (not the police). In any event, whether the prosecutor decides not to file charges or whether charges are filed and dismissed at some point prior to trial, whether the defendant is or isn't perceived as "innocent" is a matter of subjective opinion. There is no legal status attached to that.
I don't agree with this. The opposite of guilty is not guilty, and "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing. You wrote earlier in this thread that "Courts don't decide innocence," but that's not entirely accurate. Courts tying criminal cases only determine guilt of the absence of guilt and do not make findings of "innocence." However, in certain proceedings (typically in the field of post-conviction relief) a court may make a finding of innocence.
Think of it like this:
"Guilty" means that the prosecutor convinced the jury that the defendant did the crime.
"Not guilty" means that the prosecutor failed to convince the jury that the defendant did the crime. The defendant may or may not have done the crime; we don't know.
"Innocent" means that the court was convinced that the defendant did not do the crime.
Fair enough, but this is not a common occurrence and generally doesn't apply to what is being discussed here. A dismissal of charges is not an indication of guilt or innocence, just a lack of evidence or interest in prosecution.The only time that a court can actually call someone innocent is if they really did not do it, AND the real perp is discovered.
If charges are filed and subsequently dropped, then the defendant is neither guilty nor not guilty. "Innocent" has no meaning in this context.
Considered by whom? There are folks who "consider" O.J. Simpson to have been innocent of killing his ex-wife and her friend. Notably, however, his acquittal did not equate to a finding of "innocence." If it had, then it would not have been possible for a civil jury to have found him liable for those deaths.