4 ms·
How is it clear to any 'right thinking person what happened'? Until there is corroborating evidence (witness, confession, etc) I see no reason to believe anyth
by smanek 16y ago
How is it clear to any 'right thinking person what happened'?
Until there is corroborating evidence (witness, confession, etc) I see no reason to believe anything about events that took place. It seems incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to default to believing one person's (as of yet) unsubstantiated tale.
I can think of half a dozen scenarios in which the accused was innocent. Everything from mistaken identity (that has happened to me!), to drunken mis-remembering, to flat out lying is still on the table.
- rue 16y agoYou are misreading the GP. The sentiment, as I understand it, is that the legal framework is most important when one is personally involved, even if the case seems very clear to oneself and even other observers.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- patio11 16y agoThis is why "right thinking person" is generally supposed to be read as an ironic marker: it is a subrosa way to say "the meaning of my words is different than than their literal import." You will virtually never hear those words meant literally.
- smanek 16y agoAh, my apologies! With the new parsing, your comment makes perfect sense.