zlacker

He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial.

But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can deny them business opportunities, your kids don't have to play with his kids.

>>lordna+(OP)
Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.

>>lordna+(OP)
> You can say bad things about him before the judge does

Yup, I don’t understand how people is not used yet to public trials at social networks

>>lordna+(OP)
But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt.

You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?

>>mardif+ig
> But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here.

I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense.

The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like.

But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.

>>lordna+(OP)
And plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined because of exactly this behavior.

>>nobrai+P3
>Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them."

Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory?

I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything.

What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?

>>lordna+(OP)
Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.