3 ms·
Isn’t this evidence of targeted harassment? Your logic sort of indicates that without evidence of the government wrongdoing then the subject is likely guilty o
by rubyfan 3y ago
Isn’t this evidence of targeted harassment?
Your logic sort of indicates that without evidence of the government wrongdoing then the subject is likely guilty of something. The burden of proof is on the state is it not?
- zeroCalories 3y agoNone of this is evidence. If the FBI had a good reason to show up, then now we're back to 0. We would need a prior identifiable pattern of behavior to make such an assumption. As for the burden of proof, it's true that the FBI is responsible for justifying their actions, but that's not applicable here. This isn't a court case, the lady isn't going to sue, and the article didn't even try to get a statement from the FBI. Also, I forgot another case 3. the FBI made a one time simple mistake. Without more information, I don't particularly care to give this woman any sympathy.
- rubyfan 3y agoPresumption of innocence isn’t sympathy.
- zeroCalories 3y agoThis isn't a court room. I don't need to grant a presumption of innocence.
- greyface- 3y ago> the article didn't even try to get a statement from the FBI. > Kayla McCleery, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office, declined to comment.
- zeroCalories 3y agoGuess I'm wrong on that. Makes me a little less doubtful.