RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 5, 2017 at 5:27 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 7:01 am by Cyberman.)
(August 5, 2017 at 1:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(August 5, 2017 at 1:05 am)Astonished Wrote: Well, if a certain asshole hadn't arranged for there to be no actual evidence (fat fucking chance), that wouldn't be an issue. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. But hey, at least you managed to at least attempt to scrape together a case, even if that case is "in the absence of any other evidence, no matter how bad or unreliable testimony is, it must be believed unquestioningly 100% of the time in every case." Congratu-fucking-lations. William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort would be SO proud.
You don't have to do anything. Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence. A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority.
People get away with shit all the time through lack of evidence. I gave a perfect real-life example myself. At the same time, assessing objectively events that one was not present to witness based solely on witness testimony is, as we have seen, nigh on impossible to the extent of being dangerously unreliable.
