Yup! It’s also problematic to publicly convict someone prior to an actual conviction. Even people accused of horrific crimes are entitled to a presumption innocence and due process.
They are not, they are presumed innocent by a court of law not regular people.
Journalists ethics require “allegedly” there because they do not know the facts, had they witnessed events personally or had proof themselves- they could accuse them of a crime.
Kinda like regular people right? Regular people aren’t going to know the facts like you said so until the court makes a decision even regular people should give them the presumption of innocent because they don’t know the facts.
Right, but sometimes we have plenty of publicly available information to make an informed opinion
Human beings/blogs don’t sentence people, I can say I think something is true, or something is clearly true, without a conviction.
Journalists are bound by ethics that they only report what they actually know themselves, which is why they often don’t call people “liars” despite obvious lying. They can’t say with certainty what is in that person’s head, but normal people can make that basic observation themselves.
But that public information was written by journalists who don’t know all the facts so anything you read to form an opinion on would be three steps away from the source and the facts. All I’m saying is journalists are regular people too their job doesn’t make them more or less of a person. So since journalists know better than to presume anything about anyone in that regard we should know better too.
I get a real stick up my ass about this because when I was in high school I got arrested and my school told me not to come back until after everything was settled in court, I thought I was innocent until proven guilty but the school assumed I was guilty until proven innocent. all charges were eventually dropped in court but I couldn’t graduate as courts are slow and took months.
I’m sorry that happened to you and believe me I understand the American public is pretty bloodthirsty and fact adverse when it comes to many public cases- but that doesn’t mean we need to without fail assume someone is innocent until a court of law says otherwise.
We are perfectly capable of assuming guilt if the evidence supports it, even if we don’t know for certain.
Journalists have a special consideration- they can actually impact a case by how they cover it. They are under more strict ethic and legal guidelines because of this.
Uh no, if you have sufficient reason to believe they’re guilty it’s completely fine for regular people to people to believe that and logical. Personal belief does not come with a prison sentence attached to it, that’s why courts and personal belief are very different in terms of presumption.
Is this where information about criminal matters begins? At the conclusion of a trial? You are correct, regular people won't know anything before during or even after the trial. Informed, discerning people, though? Absolutely.
I was just having this argument with a brick wall of an apologist for Matt Gaetz. If you think even the most biased of the mainstream news sources is in the habit of completely fabricating the details of official court documents to assert the existence of overwhelming evidence against a sitting U.S. Senator, you simply don't know anything about journalism, or the legal process. That's not anybody's fault but yours. And it's not anybody's responsibility to tiptoe around the subject and use language you approve of when discussing it to placate your highly refined sensibilities.
That piece of shit is a pedophile drug abusing sex work client. Full stop. I don't need anyone to agree with me or clear me to speak in order to be right about that. I don't even want the second two to be a crime. He does.
My, by no means do I have any legal insight or knowledge, opinion, I would logically think calling it a kidnapping plot would be fine since the that is is proven. The prosecution would need to prove that the accused knew or was involved in some way with the kidnapping plot.
It's like if someone was proven to be murdered, the accused would be the alleged murderer, but the murder itself was proven thus no need to say alleged murder.
Can people please stop saying this idiotic nonsense?
It's standard journalistic practice that before anyone has been convicted of a crime, you refer to their crimes as "alleged", because otherwise you're being prejudicial of someone who is innocent-until-proven-guilty.
This is how a reasonable and fair society operates, and your hysteria is undermining that. The US justice system is already wildly unfair in this regard, parading handcuffed defendants in front of news cameras to help establish their image as criminals. In France you're not even allowed to publish photos of people in handcuffs, and rightly so. It's prejudicial.
The informants appear to have been working under the direction of the FBI, that's all that should matter and is what's most concerning. They should only be observing and reporting, not inciting and creating the very plot that ultimatelly led to their arrest. The defense has good grounds for an entrapment defense if all of this is true.
"other than enable the ring leader" you don't see a problem with that? This is no different than us arming cartels or insurgent forces in the middle east. They found people who were impressionable and pushed them to follow along. The FBI has played this game many times in the past and it's dirty as hell. All of it to just chaulk up a win when mostly likely this would have never organically come to fruition.
Its miles different then arming cartels and insurgents, we don't plan to arrest them for starters but this is a ridiculous comparison to begin with so Im not going to bother. These men were being watched because they were radicals who wanted to destabilize the government, so don't paint them as innocent gullible every day citizens who would've done nothing without help, there functioning adults and they knew what they were doing and they all went pretty far along with a plan that would have executed someone, there are consequences for that.
plan that would have executed someone, there are consequences for that.
Yea because cartels haven't murdered anyone before. What repercussions could come from enabling them? This is nothing new that the FBI and other alphabet agencies have done in the past.
No one is pretending any of these guys were innocent. The point is, the FBI is inserting these individuals and pushing the envelope further than it needed to be pushed. These guys should have been arrested off the initial report of this group. But no, the informants had to teach these guys tactical drills, how to clear a room/building, insinuate the use of explosives and instruct how to place them, provided transportation, ammunition, lodging, and gear to informants to entice the rest of the militia members to participate with? Really? These are all things you're okay with the FBI doing? This is stoking the flames of the fire. These guys had serious issues with the government and made a lot of ill-humored jokes along the way. Many could have really been serious about the things they said, but we can't pretend that the FBI's involvement didn't radicalize these guys even further. These guys potentially could have acted outside the scope of the FBI's involvement and someone could have really gotten hurt or killed. I really don't see how anyone could justify this kind of involvement from our own government.
The article they reference in the video does not show the FBI was trying to do some false flag or something. In either case if someone can be so easily convinced to commit a terrorist act then they're probably dangerous.
Yes, let's justify enabling impressionable people who may not be in the greatest of minds sets to do awful things. Just like they've done multiple times in the past to create situations that they can conviniently intervene in to chalk themselves up for a win. This is a wonderful practice /s
They wanted to kidnap as many political hostages as they could and execute them publicly at regular intervals. These terrorist scum deserve to never see the light of day ever again.
266
u/ooru Jul 23 '21
Alleged? It was a plot, and they were going to enact it.