4 ms·

That’s not the point of statistics like that. We don’t assume guilt because something is plausible. That is the same as going around calling every man who look

That’s not the point of statistics like that. We don’t assume guilt because something is plausible. That is the same as going around calling every man who looks creepy a pedo. You might be right once in a while, but that doesn’t entitle you to smear people without facts.

autoexec 3y ago
I'd agree that it would be totally wrong to throw this cop in jail for beating his ex without actual proof. A teenager's youtube video isn't a courtroom though and shouldn't require the same standards for proof. I'm just saying that it's a lot less unreasonable to accuse this cop of beating his ex than it would be to pick a random person on the street and accuse them of the same. He was clearly wrong about the conviction, there's a pretty good chance he wasn't wrong about the abuse. Maybe that's a good enough standard of evidence to demand from the youtube video of a justifiably pissed off 19 year old? It'd be best if he uploaded a correction, or even a corrected re-upload of his video, but I think it's fair to say that this kid has been screwed over by the legal system enough already. He should probably get a pass for getting the fact about the conviction wrong and not maintaining the highest levels of journalistic integrity in the youtube video documenting the violation of his rights.
- criddell 3y ago
  > shouldn’t require the same standards for proof It doesn’t. One is criminal, the other civil. Totally different standards.
ofslidingfeet 3y ago
No, generally what entitles you to smear people with generic insults without facts is the principle of free speech.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Try yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and telling the cops they can’t arrest you because free speech. That isn’t how free speech works. Also, they weren’t generic insults. They were specific. How about if publicly I claim: “ofslidingfeet was fired for embezzling money”? Is that covered under free speech?
  - ofslidingfeet 3y ago
    If you yell fire in a crowded theater, nothing will happen.

autoexec 3y ago

I'd agree that it would be totally wrong to throw this cop in jail for beating his ex without actual proof. A teenager's youtube video isn't a courtroom though and shouldn't require the same standards for proof. I'm just saying that it's a lot less unreasonable to accuse this cop of beating his ex than it would be to pick a random person on the street and accuse them of the same. He was clearly wrong about the conviction, there's a pretty good chance he wasn't wrong about the abuse. Maybe that's a good enough standard of evidence to demand from the youtube video of a justifiably pissed off 19 year old? It'd be best if he uploaded a correction, or even a corrected re-upload of his video, but I think it's fair to say that this kid has been screwed over by the legal system enough already. He should probably get a pass for getting the fact about the conviction wrong and not maintaining the highest levels of journalistic integrity in the youtube video documenting the violation of his rights.

criddell 3y ago
> shouldn’t require the same standards for proof It doesn’t. One is criminal, the other civil. Totally different standards.

ofslidingfeet 3y ago

No, generally what entitles you to smear people with generic insults without facts is the principle of free speech.

bequanna 3y ago
Try yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and telling the cops they can’t arrest you because free speech. That isn’t how free speech works. Also, they weren’t generic insults. They were specific. How about if publicly I claim: “ofslidingfeet was fired for embezzling money”? Is that covered under free speech?
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago
  If you yell fire in a crowded theater, nothing will happen.