this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
1290 points (97.7% liked)
Political Memes
5341 readers
3774 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my view, innocent until proven guilty is a concept that only applies to legal proceedings. It’s a vital concept to apply to the state to prevent tyranny. But the colloquial standard of proof is much lower, We know he did those things, he’s even admitted it, and those things are crimes. He committed crimes.
And, we can safely say it, and it will have no effect on the legal proceedings, because we’re not part of them. Let’s not muddy the waters, and let’s save “allegedly” in the colloquial context for things for which we have no proof. Otherwise, how do we talk about cases like OJ Simpson? Everybody knows he did it, but the state didn’t meet its burden of proof in court. In the legal sense, he’s not guilty, and in the colloquial sense, he’s guilty, and both of those things can be true at once.
I respect it by accepting the outcome of the legal process, even if I don’t like it, not by tying myself up in conversational knots. I, for one, will continue to say that he committed crimes, because he did. Whether he’s convicted is different matter.
English may be my second language, but isn't those pretty contradictory?
"I already believe he is guilty" is an opinion which does not violate the legal process unless you're in the juror's box or otherwise involved in the justice system prosecuting him.
I don’t think so. One is a statement of (perceived) fact. The other the outcome of a process. Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. At least, in a just world. There are too many people convicted by a court of law who did not commit a crime, and I’m not going to call them criminals.
Being accused of committing a crime is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. Many people commit crimes and get away with it because they have no accusers. Many others are defendants who are accused, but did not actually commit any crime. I'm not saying that Trump didn't commit crimes (it's pretty obvious that he did), but I am pointing out that it is the accusation and being formally charged that causes one to be prosecuted. In my mind, it's an important distinction.
Fair point, and a good elaboration. That dovetails with my thinking, too. If a house gets robbed and there's no evidence who did it, we still call it a crime, even without a conviction in court. If we accuse somebody of it, that's a good use of "accused criminal" in the colloquial sense.
I probably should have elaborated further in my first comment. The average Fediverse user seems to be highly reactionary, and I shouldn't have assumed that people would read deeper into what I was trying to say.
It's my second language too and I can see how it might be confusing, but as far as I can tell, they're saying
"I'll accept the verdict whether or not he's declared guilty. That won't stop me from continuing to say he's guilty, though"
Trump himself was all too happy to let accusations fly about Hunter Biden although nothing is proven guilty there.
You must be either very rich and powerful or very delusional if you think the US "justice" system protects you and Trump equally 🙄
Also, innocent until proven guilty is not a rare concept globally by any stretch of the imagination so you can stow your American Exceptionalism bullshit too while you're at it.
It's pretty rare in fact. Vast majority of humanity lives under judicial systems that require defendants to prove their innocence rather than prosecutors to prove the defendants' guilt.
Given the reams of evidence that have been widely shared, I'm pretty comfortable applying my own standard of reasonable doubt and point out the obvious - he's guilty.
I'm not doling out consequences - if me saying that hurts his feelings, he's welcome to try suing me.