Either way, I prefer to respect the system that protects me just as it protects Trump: Innocent until proven guilty. Let’s respect this liberal concept that we enjoy that most people globally do not have access to.
I respect it by accepting the outcome of the legal process, even if I don’t like it, not by tying myself up in conversational knots. I, for one, will continue to say that he committed crimes, because he did. Whether he’s convicted is different matter.
I don’t think so. One is a statement of (perceived) fact. The other the outcome of a process. Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. At least, in a just world. There are too many people convicted by a court of law who did not commit a crime, and I’m not going to call them criminals.
Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings.
Being accused of committing a crime is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. Many people commit crimes and get away with it because they have no accusers. Many others are defendants who are accused, but did not actually commit any crime. I’m not saying that Trump didn’t commit crimes (it’s pretty obvious that he did), but I am pointing out that it is the accusation and being formally charged that causes one to be prosecuted. In my mind, it’s an important distinction.
Fair point, and a good elaboration. That dovetails with my thinking, too. If a house gets robbed and there’s no evidence who did it, we still call it a crime, even without a conviction in court. If we accuse somebody of it, that’s a good use of “accused criminal” in the colloquial sense.
I probably should have elaborated further in my first comment. The average Fediverse user seems to be highly reactionary, and I shouldn’t have assumed that people would read deeper into what I was trying to say.
Either way, I prefer to respect the system that protects me just as it protects Trump: Innocent until proven guilty. Let’s respect this liberal concept that we enjoy that most people globally do not have access to.
I respect it by accepting the outcome of the legal process, even if I don’t like it, not by tying myself up in conversational knots. I, for one, will continue to say that he committed crimes, because he did. Whether he’s convicted is different matter.
English may be my second language, but isn’t those pretty contradictory?
I don’t think so. One is a statement of (perceived) fact. The other the outcome of a process. Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. At least, in a just world. There are too many people convicted by a court of law who did not commit a crime, and I’m not going to call them criminals.
Being accused of committing a crime is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. Many people commit crimes and get away with it because they have no accusers. Many others are defendants who are accused, but did not actually commit any crime. I’m not saying that Trump didn’t commit crimes (it’s pretty obvious that he did), but I am pointing out that it is the accusation and being formally charged that causes one to be prosecuted. In my mind, it’s an important distinction.
Fair point, and a good elaboration. That dovetails with my thinking, too. If a house gets robbed and there’s no evidence who did it, we still call it a crime, even without a conviction in court. If we accuse somebody of it, that’s a good use of “accused criminal” in the colloquial sense.
I probably should have elaborated further in my first comment. The average Fediverse user seems to be highly reactionary, and I shouldn’t have assumed that people would read deeper into what I was trying to say.