3 ms·

"This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case." Well, you're mixing issues. Those are two completely

"This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case." Well, you're mixing issues. Those are two completely separate arguments. 1) victim blaming, and 2) it's already been tried On point 2. I don't necessarily agree that once a court has tried something, it is automatically correct and shouldn't be discussed. I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a full week in trial in San Francisco, against corrupt lawyers, representing myself, and was one of the very few that prevailed in such a situation. I have seen some awful stuff, so no, I don't trust the legal system to always produce correct results, even here. Regardless, that wasn't my point. For people such as yourself being so quick to cry "victim blaming" is a very good indication to me that bias in such situations is common. Again, why should you assume that because one person was harmed that the other person was responsible? Surely you recognize that there can be a clearcut cases where the victim (i.e. the one harmed or killed) was the one who caused the accident? Right? And again, the real "victim" (the woman killed) isn't the one I am suggesting might be partially to blame.

ivan_gammel 7y ago
Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question. I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  You used the term "victim blaming" to shut down conversation. The other stuff, whether or not the courts work, is irrelevant to that. I think the other people who have responded to your use of the term "victim blaming" state my points as well as I could, so I'll leave it at that.

ivan_gammel 7y ago

Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question. I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.

robbrown451 7y ago
You used the term "victim blaming" to shut down conversation. The other stuff, whether or not the courts work, is irrelevant to that. I think the other people who have responded to your use of the term "victim blaming" state my points as well as I could, so I'll leave it at that.