4833

Look, we just definitive need proof of the victim’s innocence!

4835

Wait, wait, wait. Are people actually arguing that we should start with the presumption of guilt on someone accused of a crime?

4836

Anon, I’m sorry man, you’re not going to convince me that I don’t want to see what happened.

I’m not even trying to argue with you at this point, man.

4837

Neely might be dead.

The scenario I’m imagining is this one: Neely steps into the train car, begins his rant. At the end he looks around at everyone. At this point our ex-marine stands up, begins shouting at Neely. He says he hates all homeless people, he’s tired of them, and he doesn’t care if he goes to jail, he’s not putting up with homeless people anymore. So Neely chokes him to death. All the witnesses agree that this is what happened. They say that Neely’s speech frightened them, but also that ex-marine’s speech frightened them, and they can understand how Neely was frightened.

So, what’s the presumption here?

4838

No, we’re arguing a guy on tape choking a dude out until he died should be charged and not let go based on the assumption the killing was justified.

4839

No, they’re arguing that it is perverse to insist that the ex-marine might be innocent because Neely might be guilty, and then describe that as ‘presumption of innocence.’

4840

To clarify, I’ve said that it’s a good thing that the DA is investigating this case further.

I just said that I’m personally not willing to assume the straphanger is guilty, because I want to see what happened. And then after I see what happened, I may very well think that he’s guilty.

Sorry guys, I’m not gonna budge on this I don’t think. It seems like a waste of time to try and argue about it.

4841

I deleted that last post because I realized I didn’t agree with it. I usually don’t post this fast!

It just seems to me that you are giving much more benefit of the doubt to the ex-marine (do we have a name here?) than you are to Neely. That you’re allowing hypothetical justifications for one defense but not the other.

That’s what I’m interrogating.

4842

We have nothing, the police are protecting him. They released the full criminal and medical record for the victim but nothing on the marine.

4843

Nobody has demanded you declare him guilty before trial, so I’m not sure who this stand is against.

Pointing out the potential justification for the killing relies on a presumption of guilt for the victim is not somehow an arguement to abandon the presumption of innocence.

4844

Thank you. That is a much better articulation of what I was trying to get at with my deleted post.

4845

Yes, the existence of things like self defense essentially involves the presumption that a victim may have been guilty of something.

So we look at what happened, and then we’ll be able to assess whether that was the case or not.

4846

Great, so you realized now that nobody was arguing for a presumption of guilt or anything like that, right?

4847

I’m not sure what you guys are yelling at me for then.
I just said I want to see what happened before Neely was restrained, before I decide if the Marine committed murder or not.

4848

The assumption you are being yelled at often leads to these misunderstandings.

4849

I think even based on what we know, he committed murder. He strangled a guy to death after restraining him (remember two people helped hold him down, the choke hold would be completely unnecessary at that point. It’s not like this was some kind of desperate one on one struggle). Add to that he’s a marine trained in hand to hand combat, it seems like a reach to say he didn’t know what he was doing.

4850

Eh, it’s a forum dogpile. Same thing really.

4851

Our drill instructors told us “We’re going to teach you just enough hand-to-hand combat for you to get your asses kicked in a bar fight.” Just because someone was in the service doesn’t mean they’re expert martial artists.

4852

The dark and gritty Con-Air reboot no one asked for.

4853

It’s people trying to get Timex to understand their point and in the presumption of innocence discussion the obvious flaw in the logic. Sure some eye rolling but hardly yelling.

Assuming everyone is arguing against a base principle like presumption of innocence in the justice system and thus crazy will get people to reply to try to say “wait, what, no, my point was”. That’s a dogpile?