posted on May, 28 2020 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: jrod
Curious if this is true. Seems to contradict innocent until proven guilty. With the onus being on the prosecution to prove their guilt, not for the
defense to prove them innocent or not guilty. Since them being innocent/not guilty is the default.
Of course there is a ton of complexities and I explained it all in a simplified way for the sake of discussing it. But doesnt make much sense that the
defense has to prove a felony, as i dont think that fits in with innocent until proven guilty, likewise the dynamics of proving that without Ahmaud
even being there also doesnt make much sense.
All you will have will be various people saying, no i dont think a felony occurred, i dont think Ahmaud was doing x or y, and so on. So i can not see
how it wont come down to the people making the judgement, deciding based on the prosecution's arguments and then the defense's defense, to counter
whatever their argument is, that the McMichaels were justified in conducting a citizen's arrest.
And that then will come down to whether the people on the jury imagining if they were in the McMichaels shoes, would have also thought that a felony
occurred/they had reasonable grounds to suspect Ahmaud.
And yes your final statement gets to the heart of the issue, but again it goes both ways, not towards just people favoring them, but people not
favoring them. It is why the way it is suppose to work is that the people making the judgment are their peers in the community and they would be
basing it on the concern of the community/concern for the McMichaels. Not going about it as if you are putting on trial an enemy you just fought a war
It's all about whatever we want, if this society is irredeemable, then it doesnt matter, things will inevitably collapse because it isn't being ran
correctly. So yeah we can continue to pretend their is legitimacy to whats going on, and buy into the veneer of propriety they are selling, up until
the veil cant be maintained anymore.