3 ms·
You're right especially since they sprinkle "allegedly" throughout the article to cover their asses already. Whilst I agree with the issues he was concerned ab
by fennecbutt 1y ago
You're right especially since they sprinkle "allegedly" throughout the article to cover their asses already.
Whilst I agree with the issues he was concerned about, I do not support his supposed actions but he should be treated fairly, innocent until proven guilty as we all have the right to.
However, having been on juries myself (in the UK), I know for sure that the justice system is deeply flawed and juries are heavily biased and bully each other into a result. The white woman is still good, the black man is still bad. Even if they don't say it out loud.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoIt is almost like the legal system isn't the arbiter of objective fact (which is what journalists endeavor to report).
- ty6853 1y agoYes but if your facts are found to be wrong regarding elements of a crime you could lose everything and spend the rest of your life in an impossible to crawl out of financial hole (see Alex Jones or Ammon Bundy). Therefore when discussing facts regarding a crime it is best to be vague rather than state it objectively.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoSeems like it's a reason to verify facts and qualify them when you can't. Luckily for Jones and Bundy, any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.
- ty6853 1y agoI think that was the point of this particular thread, that we don't appear to have any real confidence wired.com could verify this was Luigi's gun. >any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability. In both cases they lost everything because it was found they misreported the facts of a crime or alleged crimes.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago"Misreported" is certainly one way to phrase it.