3 ms·
Lawyers prosecuting cases need proof. The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a co
by staunch 7y ago
Lawyers prosecuting cases need proof.
The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion.
On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terrible at objective analysis.
- soulofmischief 7y agoThat isn't how "innocent until proven guilty" works, staunch. You cannot claim Assange is guilty without irrefutable evidence, which you still have not provided.
- staunch 7y agoThis isn't a courtroom, soulofmischief. My conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.
- soulofmischief 7y agoInnocent until proven guilty is a thing for a reason. We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along. You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof. So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.