I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
I think you got it a little mixed up. The state needs to have it proven that he did in fact commit that murder, and not leave any doubt about it.
It’s really not his job to prove anything, let alone that you can’t prove innocence in a lot of cases.
By your very own argument, you are highlighting the important part that you are missing. What if the justice system finds out it doesn’t know. Justice is not boolean.
IF HE DID IT, HE SHOULD ROT. IF HE DIDN’T, HE SHOULD WALK.
Does every concept of every idea need to be explained around here? It’s a given in the above statement that if he can’t be found guilty- he should walk. Why does this need to be argued?
My fucking god people need everything spelled out around here. For fuck’s sake.
I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
I think you got it a little mixed up. The state needs to have it proven that he did in fact commit that murder, and not leave any doubt about it. It’s really not his job to prove anything, let alone that you can’t prove innocence in a lot of cases.
Either way it doesn’t matter. The point is- if it is proven that he did it, he should rot. If it is found that he didn’t, he should walk.
That’s how a justice system is supposed to work.
We don’t decide who’s guilty or not based on how we feel about the victim.
By your very own argument, you are highlighting the important part that you are missing. What if the justice system finds out it doesn’t know. Justice is not boolean.
IF HE DID IT, HE SHOULD ROT. IF HE DIDN’T, HE SHOULD WALK.
Does every concept of every idea need to be explained around here? It’s a given in the above statement that if he can’t be found guilty- he should walk. Why does this need to be argued?
My fucking god people need everything spelled out around here. For fuck’s sake.
If the state can prove that he undoubtedly did it, he should be punished.
If the state’s case is weak enough to leave some lingering doubts, he should walk.
The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. Their job is to cast doubt on whatever the state claims.
That’s how our justice system works.
Either way it doesn’t matter. If he did it, he should rot. If he didn’t- He should walk.
Why is this difficult for you to understand.
Kyle Rittenhouse has entered the chat.
So from-
Your take is that I’m Rittenhouse.
LOL…