• @librechad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    Thanks for your input. I understand that not everyone agrees with the jury’s decision. My point was not to say that the verdict inherently proves moral rightness, but rather that legally, according to the standards of the trial and the statutes in Wisconsin, his actions were deemed self-defense. We can discuss the moral implications separately, but from a legal standpoint, the verdict was clear.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      571 year ago

      That’s completely inane. It’s literally just circular logic. You’re arguing that the jury’s decision proves that he was legally innocent, and that that proves the jury made the right call. By that logic, had the jury found him guilty, under the exact same circumstances, that would prove that he violated the law and that they made the right call. It’s literally just licking the boot of the legal system, your argument rests on the assumption that innocent people are never wrongfully convicted and guilty people never found innocent, which is blatantly false.

      • @librechad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I understand your perspective. My intention wasn’t to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It’s crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              37
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not a man (and neither is the bot you’re feeding our replies into)

              Obviously we already know that the jury didn’t convict. That’s one of the main things we’re criticizing. Pointing out that they didn’t convict as an argument to support them not convicting is the definition of circular reasoning.

              Find a smarter bot.

        • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          251 year ago

          Is it your honest opinion that the jurors sat down with grpah paper, checked to make sure they understood the laws and then did thr math to arrive at the final conclusion?

        • Egon [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Weak ass, you don’t understand shit but the taste of boot leather. You think you’re above it by using a chatbot to form your thoughts for you, but all it does is make you more of a cog in the machine. You are incapable of independent thought.

          • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Also, chatbots are horrible at ‘the law’. They still don’t know how to judge and rank legal citations properly and likely never will.