(September 29, 2018 at 8:45 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(September 29, 2018 at 8:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: In case there is any misunderstanding, my position is not that he is innocent. The response above was to CD saying that even IF he is innocent, he isn't fit to be judge because he was angry during the hearing.
I think that appealing to his emotions during the hearing is rather silly. I don’t see how getting sad or angry, over something that if he is correct, one should be sad and angry about, is a very good reason at all, not to conform him. It just seems resiculous. However if he had shown no emotion, I suspect that would be given as reason from some people not to confirm from some as well.
Exactly. Hypothetically speaking, if he were innocent (not saying he is), it would be completely human and normal of him to be upset, emotional, angry, etc. I'm not sure how anyone can't put themselves in that position and realize this.
With that being said, I think he more probably is not innocent. Obviously the lady was attacked. I don't think it is reasonable to deny that. But since there is still the possibility of mistaken identity given some of the evidence on his side, I hope the investigation will unequivocally either confirm or debunk this.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
