(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.
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. All the other stuff about how important it is to sometimes let guilty people go free in order to preserve the justice system, I completely agree with that. I just needed to make it clear that I only agree if it’s because the evidence cannot prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, never because their victim is a bad person.