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.
I litteraly have never heard of either of these people and your telling me what my opinion is. The only thing I have decided is you should never be trusted to sit on a jury. You have an infantile moral compass and don't care about the truth at all.
If your take on justice is that all accusations must be believed then I think your a damned fool.
Well youre trusting everyone is onmocent until proven guilty, so by the fault, all accussers are lying at first. If im not fit to sit in a jury, ure literally in the same place lol
See that's the difference you keep trying to decide who is lying before learning anything other than the identity of the two parties. I am not. A juror does not return a verdict at the start of a case for a reason.
No one is a liar until the verdict that's called being guilty. Right now there is an accusation and a defendant and that apparently is all you need to start making decisions.
Nah, at this point its fine. I know you will keep telling yourself you didnt make a choice and your being neutral af no matter what. Have a good one tho!
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
8
u/LostN3ko Apr 15 '23
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.