3 ms·

>The guy is obviously an asshole and needs help but if there was ever an argument for privacy this should be it. Basically all they have on him is him being clo

>The guy is obviously an asshole and needs help but if there was ever an argument for privacy this should be it. Basically all they have on him is him being close to the fires. Does your conclusion change if he is in fact guilty? What of the homes that didn’t burn, the lives that were not destroyed because he was caught?

Beldin 4y ago
If you want to start from the presumption someone is guilty until proven innocent, you end up reasoning like you did there. Which is a very strong case for the presumption of innocence: it is not up to the defence to prove how something has happened, only that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant was involved the way the prosecution claims. This also goes into the direction of why Lady Justitia wears a blindfold. The facts matter, other things should be ignored. His likeableness should be irrelevant in a court case.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  Did you read the full article? >The government alleges that, after Maynard departed, the agents monitoring him went to check out his campsite and ran into a pillar of smoke. At least a half-acre of the forest floor was burning. Maynard’s car proceeded to a spot six minutes away, according to tracking data, where a second fire was discovered. >In a government filing, several videos shot by Maynard are described in damning detail. One allegedly shows him threatening the home of a person who had erected a gate that prevented him from driving across private land. “I’ll just burn this to the ground,” he allegedly says. “That’s what you win. You win a wildfire right in your house.” Then the video allegedly captures the sound of Maynard rolling down a window and striking a match. >A second video allegedly shows him chasing down a mother and three children he had seen at a gas station. “What’s wrong, kids? What’s wrong?” he whispers as he drives. “Maybe you should stop pissing people off and they won’t fucking follow you to their house.” When the frightened mother pulls into a police-station parking lot, Maynard allegedly screams, “I will kill your fucking family right in front of you, bitch.” He claims, unconvincingly, that the videos were essentially just a prank. Between that, the fires, his phone's location data, and his long history of lying, mental illness and violence, I think there's enough solid evidence for Lady Justicia. The videos on his phone would never have been discovered without the arrest based on location data. So we return to the question of my original comment.

Beldin 4y ago

If you want to start from the presumption someone is guilty until proven innocent, you end up reasoning like you did there. Which is a very strong case for the presumption of innocence: it is not up to the defence to prove how something has happened, only that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant was involved the way the prosecution claims. This also goes into the direction of why Lady Justitia wears a blindfold. The facts matter, other things should be ignored. His likeableness should be irrelevant in a court case.

deepdriver 4y ago
Did you read the full article? >The government alleges that, after Maynard departed, the agents monitoring him went to check out his campsite and ran into a pillar of smoke. At least a half-acre of the forest floor was burning. Maynard’s car proceeded to a spot six minutes away, according to tracking data, where a second fire was discovered. >In a government filing, several videos shot by Maynard are described in damning detail. One allegedly shows him threatening the home of a person who had erected a gate that prevented him from driving across private land. “I’ll just burn this to the ground,” he allegedly says. “That’s what you win. You win a wildfire right in your house.” Then the video allegedly captures the sound of Maynard rolling down a window and striking a match. >A second video allegedly shows him chasing down a mother and three children he had seen at a gas station. “What’s wrong, kids? What’s wrong?” he whispers as he drives. “Maybe you should stop pissing people off and they won’t fucking follow you to their house.” When the frightened mother pulls into a police-station parking lot, Maynard allegedly screams, “I will kill your fucking family right in front of you, bitch.” He claims, unconvincingly, that the videos were essentially just a prank. Between that, the fires, his phone's location data, and his long history of lying, mental illness and violence, I think there's enough solid evidence for Lady Justicia. The videos on his phone would never have been discovered without the arrest based on location data. So we return to the question of my original comment.