All the photos look exactly like him tho… I mean is there is substantial evidence he didn’t do it? I fully support him, but I think it’s a stretch to say he was framed and the photos look nothing alike
Because if you find a guy who matches “photo of guy getting coffee”, you still don’t have evidence that he’s a killer. You have evidence that he got some coffee.
The only way we can be reasonably sure they are not is if we believe the prosecution is honoring their commitment to the constitution and acting in good faith.
I do not believe they are acting in good faith.
This means I have reasonable doubt on their entire effort.
There shouldn’t need to be evidence of his innocence, there should need to be an overwhelming amount of evidence proving he’s guilty. That’s part of the foundation for justice that courts are meant to uphold.
I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
I think you got it a little mixed up. The state needs to have it proven that he did in fact commit that murder, and not leave any doubt about it.
It’s really not his job to prove anything, let alone that you can’t prove innocence in a lot of cases.
By your very own argument, you are highlighting the important part that you are missing. What if the justice system finds out it doesn’t know. Justice is not boolean.
IF HE DID IT, HE SHOULD ROT. IF HE DIDN’T, HE SHOULD WALK.
Does every concept of every idea need to be explained around here? It’s a given in the above statement that if he can’t be found guilty- he should walk. Why does this need to be argued?
My fucking god people need everything spelled out around here. For fuck’s sake.
It’s not a case in point against me. It’s makes my point. Rittenhouse was guilty and walked because the case against him couldn’t be proven.
I said- if Luigi did it- he should rot in prison. If he didn’t he shouldn’t.
This had nothing to do with whether or not a case could be proven against him. It had to do with how it SHOULD be. Fucking christ! I didn’t think I needed to explain this.
If he did it- it should be provable if there’s evidence. If so, rot in jail as a murderer.
If he didn’t- he’s not specifically found innocent, he’s just found not guilty… and he should walk.
All the photos look exactly like him tho… I mean is there is substantial evidence he didn’t do it? I fully support him, but I think it’s a stretch to say he was framed and the photos look nothing alike
Are any of the photos from the crime scene?
Because if you find a guy who matches “photo of guy getting coffee”, you still don’t have evidence that he’s a killer. You have evidence that he got some coffee.
https://www.khou.com/video/news/nation-world/police-say-evidence-links-luigi-mangione-to-deadly-shooting-of-united-healthcare-ceo-brian-thompson/285-a975b482-0b6f-43e1-a797-49a33225d35d
The police say the bullets matched the “ghost gun” that he had on him, along with fingerprints from the crime scene. They say it’s “hard evidence.”
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The misuse of evidence and the lead detective and mayor sharing evidence his lawyer hasn’t seen in a media campaign to impugn the man.
There’s reasonable doubt in their earnest attempt at seeking justice here. They seem hellbent on violating his constitutional rights.
I doubt they have the right guy. Reasonably
Excellent explanation, I too doubt that it was him and would vote not guilty
Dude has a familiar face. There are tons of people that look “just like” those fuzzy videos and pics
Could those photos be ai generated?
The only way we can be reasonably sure they are not is if we believe the prosecution is honoring their commitment to the constitution and acting in good faith.
I do not believe they are acting in good faith.
This means I have reasonable doubt on their entire effort.
Justice is dead.
There shouldn’t need to be evidence of his innocence, there should need to be an overwhelming amount of evidence proving he’s guilty. That’s part of the foundation for justice that courts are meant to uphold.
Edit: mistype for spelling
I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
I think you got it a little mixed up. The state needs to have it proven that he did in fact commit that murder, and not leave any doubt about it. It’s really not his job to prove anything, let alone that you can’t prove innocence in a lot of cases.
Either way it doesn’t matter. The point is- if it is proven that he did it, he should rot. If it is found that he didn’t, he should walk.
That’s how a justice system is supposed to work.
We don’t decide who’s guilty or not based on how we feel about the victim.
If the state can prove that he undoubtedly did it, he should be punished.
If the state’s case is weak enough to leave some lingering doubts, he should walk.
The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. Their job is to cast doubt on whatever the state claims.
That’s how our justice system works.
Either way it doesn’t matter. If he did it, he should rot. If he didn’t- He should walk.
Why is this difficult for you to understand.
By your very own argument, you are highlighting the important part that you are missing. What if the justice system finds out it doesn’t know. Justice is not boolean.
IF HE DID IT, HE SHOULD ROT. IF HE DIDN’T, HE SHOULD WALK.
Does every concept of every idea need to be explained around here? It’s a given in the above statement that if he can’t be found guilty- he should walk. Why does this need to be argued?
My fucking god people need everything spelled out around here. For fuck’s sake.
Kyle Rittenhouse has entered the chat.
So from-
Your take is that I’m Rittenhouse.
LOL…
Removed by mod
Ahh… personal attacks now?
It’s not a case in point against me. It’s makes my point. Rittenhouse was guilty and walked because the case against him couldn’t be proven.
I said- if Luigi did it- he should rot in prison. If he didn’t he shouldn’t.
This had nothing to do with whether or not a case could be proven against him. It had to do with how it SHOULD be. Fucking christ! I didn’t think I needed to explain this.
If he did it- it should be provable if there’s evidence. If so, rot in jail as a murderer.
If he didn’t- he’s not specifically found innocent, he’s just found not guilty… and he should walk.
For fuck’s sake….
Internet lawyers are the fucking worst!
Removed by mod