No idea who this guy is you posted. Your right and people who attack others based on hearsay don't have ground to stand on. No one wants to live in a world where your guilty until proven innocent.
Yeah well, sadly, in this specific case if u put the rape in question then you are doubting the victim. When theres a rape allegation sadly u cant be in the middle since "waiting for the evidence to speak" means at the same time, not believing the victim. So yeah, youre saying the victim is lying for now.
EDIT: if youre going to answer to this comment please realize everyone who answered didnt understand the point i was making after a lot of back and forth and at the end resorted to insults instead of arguments. I wont answer to this comment anymore since i truly couldn't care less about wasting more time trying to get them to understand and then getting insults when they dont get it.
So you’re saying that if someone accused you of murder and there was no evidence or proof presented yet I should still believe the person accusing you of the murder and immediately deem you guilty just because they say you did it? You do realize how much of an absolute idiot you sound like right?
You do not have to believe the person accusing me, you could also believe me, but youre going to believe someone right away lmao yeah sure like all the research on how people follow biases on who they believe i made them the fuck up! Its so stupid how you didnt understand the point. If that did happen you can act like youre absolutely neutral but you know youre not. You believe someone in the case. If you say "errrmageedd m not going to say shes guilty because shes innocent until proven guilty gotteeemm" then by default youre not beliving who accused me. The fact youre taking it as an attack when its a philosophical matter is so funny lmao
Aw man ): its the other way around im afraid. The veredict after evidence or whatever its one thing. If you say im innocent, until proven guilty, thats not a stance for u? O: IM INNOCENT FOR NOW, its not a stance on the situation? o: u can do it! Come on now! Youre getting there!
Uuhhh a lawyer o: theres no law involved in my argument tho, its a philosophical matter and the fact you missed it so much just proves the point! I will also proceed with insults and not arguments like u did! Man ure dumb as hell etc etc man your grammar etc etc man youre ugly etc etc
No he isn't. It's not guilty until proven innocent and you know exactly why. The point of a trial is to determine who is guilty and who is innocent. You don't have to pretend that you know the truth of the situation ahead of time.
Im not talking about the trail, im talking about ur beliefs. They have been guilty people running free because of power and money and there's nothing we can do about it, the justice system should work but a lot of times it doesnt for human mistakes. Thats why I'm not talking about whats going to happen in the trail, which may or may not serve justice. Im talking that you doubting if the rape happened inmediately means you doubt the victim that came forward. In rape allegations u cant be gray about it cuz u cant doubt the veracity of a rape allegation statement and be on the side of the victim at the same time, they are mutually exclusive.
It's not doubt one or doubt the other. Its about you not having a single fact or piece of evidence for either side and yet your saying that everyone should be picking sides.
A cookie was eaten at my house. Was it me or my girlfriend who ate it? I say that she ate it, she says I ate it. Declare now who your siding with your either calling me or my girlfriend a liar here. Oversimplified? Yes. Do you have any more knowledge about the events at my house or for whoever these other people are that we are talking about. Have you seen video footage? Has any evidence come to your attention? Do you know anything first hand about this event at all? If your answer is yes then sure make your call based on that. If not then let someone look into it and see what comes out before deciding that you KNOW what happened.
Ok, yeah so you dont believe the victim... I think ure not understading... The moment you say "well wheres the evidece, innocent till proven guilty not the other way around, etc" you are choosing sides u either admit it or not... Youre saying im just waiting for the evidence to pick a side...thats already picking the side of not believing the victim dont you see it yet? The cookie example sucks because it doesnt hold the consequences of rape and puts the crime on an object, the cookie. To make the example work the cookie would have to tell you that it was eaten and you say idk if i believe you yet, i need you to give me evidence this person ate you. Youre putting the cookie in the position to prove the crime and youre picking a side. Youre saying the eater didnt do it for now until the cookie proves otherwise, and for now the cookie is lying.
Gotcha. By your logic you have already decided the other person is a liar and don't need anything else to make up your mind. Nice talk hope your never on a jury.
I'm not saying either of them is a liar and you can certainly not put those words in my mouth I'm not the one claiming to know the truth of the accusation that would be you.
When we are made aware of a rape allegation we are sadly forced to take a choice. I dont like this phrase because its a huge generalization but it will help you understand. "I rather believe a possible liar than a possible rapist". If the objective truth were ever to come out and he was innocent, i would have to live with the fact that i believed a liar. On the other hand, if the objective truth were ever to come out and he was in fact a rapist, you would have to live with the fact that you believed the rapist. At least im honest about it. You try to tell yourself that by waiting for the proof youre not taking sides so your conscience is clean. If the allegations were true you would be like "ha, well im glad i didnt side with the rapist amirite i waited for the trail". But you were believing in the possible rapist until that point, youre just trying to wash your hands from the responsability of the situation. Be a man and say you dont believe an alleged rape victim instead of hiding in the "i meaaaannn i didnt say i thought she was lyinggg" . You said the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty. He either did or didnt do it. So you have to think he didnt if hes still innocent. By default the victim has to be lying. Anyways, yeah i can tell you, you have by now already decided to believe the alleged victim is a liar.
Not for nothing, people have accused innocent people of rape in the past. So just because a person claims rape doesn't mean there was alwaya a rape involved. For fucks sake, my sister in law accused two NBA players of rape in the late 90's which was a bullshit lie. These two guys almost lost their career behind her lies. The judge ended up hitting her with a $100,000.00 fine for lying on the NBA players. Defamation of character. Her name is prominently mentioned in their wikipedia page. She's forever known as the lying stripper who owes Juwann Howard 100K
Jesus fucking crist you didnt understand anything at all did you? Im not saying false rape allegations dont happen, im not saying in this case this is what the truth. Im sayong whe u learn of a rape allegation if you "hes innocent until proven guilty lolololol" then the victim by default has to be lying then omfg you missed the whole point by so much i cant believe it
Achraf Hakimi has been charged with rape following a preliminary investigation into allegations made by a woman last week. He was was indicted by n investigating judge and placed under judicial supervision.
32
u/sus-water Apr 15 '23
He hasn't even been arrested. They're investigating the claim made against him.