10 ms·
Are you proposing we assume people are guilty until proven innocent? What if they _are_ innocent, and therefore keep denying it? Are you worried that innocent
by a254613e 9y ago
Are you proposing we assume people are guilty until proven innocent? What if they _are_ innocent, and therefore keep denying it?
Are you worried that innocent people will insist they're innocent, or what?
Note: I'm not saying that Moore is innocent, I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case. But being worried that people who aren't convicted of anything will deny they did something wrong just sounds... weird, regardless of the topic.
- minimaxir 9y ago> I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case. You should read about the case.
- talmand 9y agoI've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court.
- heartbreak 9y agoInnocent until proven guilty is a fine principal for a court of law, but I feel no obligation to apply it to my own decisions. I see enough evidence (not proof, evidence) to make my own decision that Moore’s accusers are telling the truth. To each his own.
- minimaxir 9y agoThis is an ironic comment for this particular HN submission, as it’s a story about women whose single testimony brought down industry leaders. And Roy Moore has eight independent accusers to date.
- insickness 9y agoWhile eight may seem like a lot, it's not that hard to find people willing to lie. If eight women came forward and said that a guy in the shipping department had harassed them, I may question it less because there is less motivation for eight women to say that. With a senate seat at stake there is a lot more reason to question it without any accompanying evidence.
- aplummer 9y agoIt’s pretty had to get 8 people to get interviewed by the cops on something this serious without screwing it up badly. Look at the fake accuser plant and the WP, they sussed it out very quickly.
- aplummer 9y agoIt’s actually 9 now.
- maxerickson 9y agoWhat sort of evidence would you consider dispositive?
- talmand 9y agoI think a clear photograph of the person committing the misdeeds would be useful, but not for everybody it seems.
- maxerickson 9y agoWell yes of course that would be useful. But let's try again. What's the least amount of evidence that you would find dispositive?
- owebmaster 9y agoIf the accused accuses back, the lack of proofs (despite evidences) would be an evidence of the plot.
- minimaxir 9y agoThe absense of evidence is not evidence.
- owebmaster 9y agoUnless you have tens of accusers and no proof. Not talking about the case, but sure a lot of accusations without proof could be a plot.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court. The standard required in an actual legal court for anything other than a criminal conviction is much lower than what you demand, and even the criminal burden of proof is singificanrtly lower, as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a far cry from “definitive proof that denials are wrong”. Ironically, the standard you demand is exactly the standard many people apply in the court of public opinion for rejecting their priors, especially when those priors are tribal (e.g., political partisan) identity markers, like “the guy on my team is virtuous”.
- pnutjam 9y agoYes, there is definitely enough evidence to conclude Ray Moore's accusers are telling the truth, if you use "beyond a reasonable doubt". Too bad so many people politicize this and take it way beyond reasonable.
- supercanuck 9y agoRoy Moore is saying he doesn't even know the women. There is documented evidence that he does (Year books and the like). As it stands now, there is evidence that Roy Moore is a liar.
- koolba 9y agoThat yearbook is the only physical evidence presented yet it seems to be forgery. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of the allegations from that accuser or the level of due diligence offered by Gloria Allred.
- supercanuck 9y agoThere are two pieces and the only one claiming forgery, is Roy Moore's camp (Shocking, i know)
- talmand 9y agoRoy Moore's camp is also asking the yearbook be handed over to a third-party for analysis but so far the request has been ignored.
- supercanuck 9y agoit was examined by Mark Songer an ex-FBI Forensic Examiner. And now there is a second piece of evidence. On a side note, Man, you guys will go to some great lengths in your misinformation. I can understand some critical thought, but its like talking to defense attorneys.
- talmand 9y agoJust a note: since this discussion was had the lady in question has admitted that a portion of the yearbook entry was indeed forged by her. The portion that a great number of people online claimed looked suspicious that was also looked at by the WAPO's expert.
- logfromblammo 9y agoThe civil standard is preponderance of evidence. The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that the civil standard is appropriate for public elections. And for this type of proceeding, hearsay is admissible as evidence. At this time, the prosecution in the court of public opinion has offered reams of eyewitness testimony (even as unreliable as that category of evidence may be), and the defense has offered "nuh-uh, wazzenme" and a parade of character witnesses--that are strangely reticent to back up their assertions with their specific reasons for believing that it would be out of character for Roy Moore to have pursued and sexually molested children when he was younger. As I am a cynical anarchist atheist, "he votes Republican and regularly attends Christian churches" actually holds negative weight for me. There is also the other thing, the thing that is undeniable fact, and a matter of public record. He has twice been evicted--dragged kicking and screaming--from public office, for flouting the law. He has twice proven himself to be incapable of upholding the parts of the U.S. constitution that he doesn't like, and it would have only taken once for me to consider him unfit to be a U.S. senator. And besides all that, he gives me the same vibe as an Alabama politician that I got from Rod Blagojevich as a Chicago politician. It's as though all the bacteria in my intestines are screaming in unison: "That guy is a colossal piece of isht, and we know isht better than anyone! Do not allow him within 100m of your government, your bank accounts, or your children!"
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoOur not. The comment was about the right for people to claim their innocence. I have no idea who the guy is.
- danso 9y agoThere's more to it than just he-said-she-said. For example, there's the fact that he had admitted relationships to some of the (older) accusers. And now he has just been issuing blanket denials. Which recently caused one of the accusers to come up with even more evidence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evi... One thing that struck me after the James O'Keefe sting blew up in his face [0] was how hard it is to backfill the details of a fabricated life, especially details, public records, witnesses and relationships for your whereabouts and actions 30 years ago. The WP has found 7 women who not only face terrific abuse for speaking up, but whose claims have stood up to deep research. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...
- fredgrott 9y agosomeone defaming some other person before court case is heard is doing a public service of indicating their guilt...and its also a crime in fact...this is what Trump is being charged with in NY court...defaming an accuser
- 1337biz 9y agoI need to jump in here, because I want to make sense of that situation in the least political loaded way possible. So let's try this: We have come to the point, where voters are going to vote for the person, who is showing the opposing party the biggest middle finger. This is the result of the ourage culture. Voters are bored as f*ck by the moral doctrine that media and self-proclaimed authorities are trying to shove down on them, branding anyone a mental-rapist, who is critical to their narrative. Their belivers are following that example - case and point the massive downvoting of every comment slightly critical to the situation among the comments here. In my opinion voters are actually smart. They realize that just because somebody has a fucked up sexuality, it doesn't make them a bad person. For the other side it is hard to accept that idea since they went so far over the line that it is totally normal to celebrate the destroying of a person publically just because a journalist wrote a story about them. Judging a person's character by their sexuality alone is just absurd, but in the current landscape it is the defacto standart. With Roy Moore it is a similar hypocrisy ongoing. Ultimately most guys have caught themselves looking at 16 year old becaue she looked hot. 'Teen' is definitly one of the most popular porn category. But we don't want to talk about this at all. So we continue to act totally amazed about Moore's popularity. While the outrage machine is hyperventilating many guys are probably secretly respecting Moore because he was able to pull of, what they were not able to do.
- aplummer 9y agoI think you need to read the charges more closely. Sexual assault of a 14 year old is not something you can judge a persons character on solely? What in your mind would be a “deal breaker” by itself?
- 1337biz 9y agoIt was 30 years ago. Even if he had killed somebody 30 years ago and lived ever since without any serious incident I would consider it to have minor relevancy for someone's character today. From a legal perspective, sure there have to be consequences. But from a moral perspective, I respect it even higher when somebody was able to change the life to the better.