The proof is the article, the burden of proof to provide a comparable case of someone who happened to be doing the most suspicious thing possible and was crucified by the media, yet turned out to be innocent, is on you.

[–] ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

There's confusion. I've maintained that to me, the goalpost is conviction. I cited an article that's less damning for sure but I still motivate my goalpost by principles, not examples. It's simpler to rely on an already established baseline, which is the justice system's convictions, and I'm okay if that means that sometimes, a very plausibly guilty man benefits from undeserved anonimity

But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments

People like to be tough on crime, but I don't like people who feel the need to do justice themselves

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments

Homeowners who murder people should be thrown in jail.

Pedophiles should be thrown in jail.

Very easy and simple to say.

I don't understand how you gotta keep running defense for pedophiles.

[–] AnarchoAnarchist@hexbear.net 3 points 7 months ago

We all know exactly why this user feels the need to defend pedophiles. We're just too polite to say it.