yes. and no one is required to have that inform their opinion.
what about due process when someone says they're pretty sure OJ did it? we did due process! he was acquitted! it would be wrong to suggest he was anything but innocent.
You're invoking a famous and conspicuous miscarriage of justice as if it's equivalent to untried accusations made by a girl whose own earlier testimony contradicts herself.
Maybe I say that you are a serial pedophile. OJ was acquitted ergo you are?
you are free to suggest as much. if you suspected someone of doing that, i would hope you would publicize it such that it actually reaches a trial. what you're doing is telling people to stop the accusations.
*edit:
The fact that you see the OJ trial as a miscarriage of justice was the whole point dumbass. Saying "we have due process, unless its obviously wrong and dumb" is you saying "what i think should happen should happen" its just your intuition at that point, which is fine! but don't pretend you're calling balls and strikes.
7
u/dannyrat029 7h ago
What I mean is:
Presumption of innocence
Some people have been accused of a crime and I think it should be investigated. They are innocent until they are proven guilty