His statement is the objectively correct side of morality and the law. Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If you disagree with this notion you have no place in any society created after the 1600s.
Okay, I don’t disagree with the statement on the face of it, that’s not what I was reacting to. Why say anything at all, if you are Jeffries? It’s not like it’s going to come out that it was all a big misunderstanding.
Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
No. I don’t need to take you to court to prove that you can’t spell ‘escape’ in your username, for example. It’s just an obvious fact.
You can’t reduce reality to legal issues and then the fact of having committed an unpleasant actions to legal outcomes. Israel could literally blow up courts which start proceedings in terms of international law against the country, for example, that wouldn’t alter the reality of the evidence against Israel.
If you hit me with your car and I die, and there are witness, you did wrong regardless of what the court says.
Innocent and guilty have formal legal definitions and informal, everyday ones. OJ Simpson was found innocent of murder, but I think it’s probably pretty likely that he did it with intent. Those can both be true.
Hakeem Jeffries! What a surprise to see you again on the wrong side of morality and the law!
His statement is the objectively correct side of morality and the law. Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If you disagree with this notion you have no place in any society created after the 1600s.
Okay, I don’t disagree with the statement on the face of it, that’s not what I was reacting to. Why say anything at all, if you are Jeffries? It’s not like it’s going to come out that it was all a big misunderstanding.
E: alright, I misread the context, fair points
There’s no way the House Minority Leader isn’t going to get questions on this. Seems pretty reasonable to get a public statement out.
Because he’s a New York politician asked for comment about a person he’s previously disagreed with very publicly.
Plenty of society’s after the 1600s, that had people and rulers who disagreed with that notion.
No. I don’t need to take you to court to prove that you can’t spell ‘escape’ in your username, for example. It’s just an obvious fact.
You can’t reduce reality to legal issues and then the fact of having committed an unpleasant actions to legal outcomes. Israel could literally blow up courts which start proceedings in terms of international law against the country, for example, that wouldn’t alter the reality of the evidence against Israel.
If you hit me with your car and I die, and there are witness, you did wrong regardless of what the court says.
Innocent and guilty have formal legal definitions and informal, everyday ones. OJ Simpson was found innocent of murder, but I think it’s probably pretty likely that he did it with intent. Those can both be true.
Thank you for restating what I said, I appreciate it.
It’s surprising that you intended to agree with the original commenter whom you replied to, but sometimes it do be like that.
The commenter with the mis-spelled username? They’re not worth listening to.
Incorrect, the reason we don’t live in the reality you describe is witness testimony is unreliable, and mob justice fails every time it’s tried.
You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Otherwise I can just say you killed my uncle and kill you in response to that made up event.