5 ms·

That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compel

by d23 5y ago

That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them.

tiffanyh 5y ago
> "It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them." You'd hope that before someone is arrested, the prosecutor has ample evidence to prove guilt. I don't understand your point. These individuals have not been proven guilty yet. Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter. Note: I have no affiliation with these individuals nor case.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial. But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can deny them business opportunities, your kids don't have to play with his kids.
  - bandrami 5y ago
    Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.
  - nobrains 5y ago
    Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them." Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory? I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything. What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?
  - melenaboija 5y ago
    > You can say bad things about him before the judge does Yup, I don’t understand how people is not used yet to public trials at social networks
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt. You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?
    - lordnacho 5y ago
      > But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense. The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like. But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    And plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined because of exactly this behavior.
- giarc 5y ago
  I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.
  - dhsysusbsjsi 5y ago
    But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.
- hellomyguys 5y ago
  It's pretty normal for people to look at the evidence and be able to decide if someone was guilty or not. If someone is on video shooting someone, it is a bit silly to say "Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter."
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    Kyle Rittenhouse would like a word with you.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
      - ryan_lane 5y ago
        Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty of the crime they were prosecuting him for. He's not someone I'd hire for anything, he's not someone I'd want my friends and family around. He's not someone I'd want attending any protest I was attending. He's not a good person, and he's a clear and present danger to society. These are the decisions that I, as an individual, am free to make because I'm not the government, and I don't have to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for how I personally judge people.
        ahallock 5y ago
        You just proved the parent's point.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Grand juries indict in >99% of cases. It's just a rubber-stamp. The grand jury only hears the prosecutor's side. They can say pretty much anything. Please find me a case where a prosecutor or LEO was charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I've been indicted twice and both times the grand jury transcripts were just lies. In fact, I got someone released after 16 months in jail on a burglary charge because their grand jury was lies. The story the cop told was a complete fabrication.
mardifoufs 5y ago
There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.
- yupper32 5y ago
  I could literally watch someone pick up a gun and shoot someone. Technically they're still innocent until a court of law says they're guilty. But as an individual I don't need to wait to think they're guilty. The question is where do you draw the line as an individual.
  - Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
    Non-lawyers often seem to misunderstand this phrase. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement defining the fact that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the government. They have to present evidence proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; you don't have to present any evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all it means. Obviously judges are not supposed to come into a case assuming you are guilty, but you can say that about any type of case. The phrase certainly doesn't mean we have to pretend that you are perfectly innocent up until the point of verdict.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Surely the important distinction here is that the state has the power to imprison or execute people. In our day to day lives, we frequently make decisions based on things not proved to that standard, such as in job interviews or on dates. Presumption of innocence is very much an abstract legal contrivance, though it's insightful to see in what cases people suddenly decide it needs to be applied outside that realm.
  - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago

by d23 5y ago

That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them.

tiffanyh 5y ago

> "It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them." You'd hope that before someone is arrested, the prosecutor has ample evidence to prove guilt. I don't understand your point. These individuals have not been proven guilty yet. Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter. Note: I have no affiliation with these individuals nor case.

lordnacho 5y ago
He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial. But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can deny them business opportunities, your kids don't have to play with his kids.
- bandrami 5y ago
  Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.
- nobrains 5y ago
  Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them." Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory? I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything. What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?
- melenaboija 5y ago
  > You can say bad things about him before the judge does Yup, I don’t understand how people is not used yet to public trials at social networks
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt. You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    > But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense. The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like. But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  And plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined because of exactly this behavior.
giarc 5y ago
I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.
- dhsysusbsjsi 5y ago
  But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.
hellomyguys 5y ago
It's pretty normal for people to look at the evidence and be able to decide if someone was guilty or not. If someone is on video shooting someone, it is a bit silly to say "Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter."
- dazilcher 5y ago
  Kyle Rittenhouse would like a word with you.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty of the crime they were prosecuting him for. He's not someone I'd hire for anything, he's not someone I'd want my friends and family around. He's not someone I'd want attending any protest I was attending. He's not a good person, and he's a clear and present danger to society. These are the decisions that I, as an individual, am free to make because I'm not the government, and I don't have to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for how I personally judge people.
      - ahallock 5y ago
        You just proved the parent's point.
kingcharles 5y ago
Grand juries indict in >99% of cases. It's just a rubber-stamp. The grand jury only hears the prosecutor's side. They can say pretty much anything. Please find me a case where a prosecutor or LEO was charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I've been indicted twice and both times the grand jury transcripts were just lies. In fact, I got someone released after 16 months in jail on a burglary charge because their grand jury was lies. The story the cop told was a complete fabrication.

mardifoufs 5y ago

There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.

yupper32 5y ago
I could literally watch someone pick up a gun and shoot someone. Technically they're still innocent until a court of law says they're guilty. But as an individual I don't need to wait to think they're guilty. The question is where do you draw the line as an individual.
- Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
  Non-lawyers often seem to misunderstand this phrase. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement defining the fact that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the government. They have to present evidence proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; you don't have to present any evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all it means. Obviously judges are not supposed to come into a case assuming you are guilty, but you can say that about any type of case. The phrase certainly doesn't mean we have to pretend that you are perfectly innocent up until the point of verdict.
NationalPark 5y ago
Surely the important distinction here is that the state has the power to imprison or execute people. In our day to day lives, we frequently make decisions based on things not proved to that standard, such as in job interviews or on dates. Presumption of innocence is very much an abstract legal contrivance, though it's insightful to see in what cases people suddenly decide it needs to be applied outside that realm.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago