(April 29, 2021 at 8:22 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(April 29, 2021 at 6:08 am)BANͦAͮNͤAͬˡHͦAͬMͩMOCK Wrote: I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but I do agree with this.


This on the other hand is disgusting. If you cannot prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they must be found innocent regardless of whether or not they actually are innocent. The innocence of their victim is not relevant though. Being a shit human being doesn’t make someone less raped or less murdered. It doesn’t matter if the victim is the worst person in the world, if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime against them, that person should not get off.

I know I said I was going to leave the topic alone, but I need to clear up this last point. You are completely misinterpreting what I posted. I was defending the justice system. I said nothing about he should be set free if proven guilty. You pulled that right out of thin air, probably looking for something to be outraged about. I meant based on the evidence that we had before us. When even your own friends don't believe you and talk about how you're nuts and planned to do this to other celebs, that's a big deal and that works against you majorly. When you're an unstable person and you suffer from schizophrenia like she does, fairly or unfairly, that could play a part in whether people think you're credible. When you admit to lying to the police like she did, first by lying about having car trouble, and then admitting you made up a story about Kobe making you go to the bathroom to wash your face, and you admit that you made up the story because you thought the police didn't believe you at the time and you thought adding that fake detail would make you more believable, that might hurt your credibility as well. If she had said that she just misremembered, that would one thing, but she literally admitted to intentionally adding fake details to her story to try to make it more believable to police. All these things add up. Obviously if I knew he was guilty, I'm not going to say let him go just to punish her for not being the best person. What do you think I am, a sociopath lol? I was clearly arguing for the legal system in first world western countries, which gives the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That entails that a heck of a lot of guilty people are going to get off. That's the system working. If Boru had just PMed me rather than jumping right to "You think rape is good hur dur", I could have cleared that up for him and this wouldn't have become a distraction from the Chauvin discussion.

(May 4, 2021 at 9:59 am)Brian37 Wrote: Not quite sure what the frey above was about. 

But there is a longstanding principle that no matter what someone is accused of, we should never want to become a vigilantee society. It is why we have courts and juries. I was reviled by the video of George's death, and it was obvious to anyone watching it it went too far. But Chauvin got a trial, and is was a mixed jury, both politically and racially. His trial was far more consideration than Chauvin gave George over what in reality was a minor infraction, and Chauvin didn't even know if George knew the note he gave the casher was fake. But even if he knew, it was not worth a death sentance. The court system was far more fair to Chauvin than Chauvin was to George.

(May 4, 2021 at 10:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 4, 2021 at 9:59 am)Brian37 Wrote: Not quite sure what the frey above was about. 

But there is a longstanding principle that no matter what someone is accused of, we should never want to become a vigilantee society. It is why we have courts and juries. I was reviled by the video of George's death, and it was obvious to anyone watching it it went too far. But Chauvin got a trial, and is was a mixed jury, both politically and racially. His trial was far more consideration than Chauvin gave George over what in reality was a minor infraction, and Chauvin didn't even know if George knew the note he gave the casher was fake. But even if he knew, it was not worth a death sentance. The court system was far more fair to Chauvin than Chauvin was to George.

You were reviled by a video? Neat trick.

Boru

(May 4, 2021 at 11:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I’m implying that you don’t know what the word ‘reviled’ means.

Boru

(May 4, 2021 at 9:43 am)BANͦAͮNͤAͬˡHͦAͬMͩMOCK Wrote:

(April 29, 2021 at 8:22 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I know I said I was going to leave the topic alone, but I need to clear up this last point. You are completely misinterpreting what I posted. I was defending the justice system. I said nothing about he should be set free if proven guilty.

I didn’t read that huge block of text because it’s just way too long. I’ll just respond to the very first part. I didn’t pull anything out of thin air. I quoted your exact words. I don’t know anything about the case you’re discussing in this side discussion. I’m just responding to a statement you made. You specifically stated that someone should get off even if they were guilty because their victim is a shit human being. That is so gross. That’s all I was commenting on. 

Quote:Lawyers for George Floyd’s convicted killer, ex-cop Derek Chauvin, filed a motion Tuesday requesting a new trial for a raft of reasons — including jury misconduct.

The motion filed by attorney Eric Nelson in a Minneapolis court cited “the interests of justice, abuse of discretion that deprived [Chauvin] of a fair trial; prosecutorial and jury misconduct,” legal errors and a verdict “contrary to law.”

(May 4, 2021 at 8:13 pm)Eleven Wrote: Chauvin files motion for new trial with jury misconduct claim
nydailynews.com

Quote:Lawyers for George Floyd’s convicted killer, ex-cop Derek Chauvin, filed a motion Tuesday requesting a new trial for a raft of reasons — including jury misconduct.

The motion filed by attorney Eric Nelson in a Minneapolis court cited “the interests of justice, abuse of discretion that deprived [Chauvin] of a fair trial; prosecutorial and jury misconduct,” legal errors and a verdict “contrary to law.”

(April 28, 2021 at 11:42 am)arewethereyet Wrote: Perhaps the reason for having admins and moderators is to guide away from topics that aren't acceptable.  It would be an impossible task to have a rule that covers every possible thing.

Anyway...Boru's comment, and mine a while back, weren't presented as "mod notes" but suggestions.  There's a difference.