I know that everything posted here comes from the prosecution. I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.Osodecentx said:OK. What do you know?Oldbear83 said:OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.Osodecentx said:I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...Oldbear83 said:I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.Osodecentx said:May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.Oldbear83 said:Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?Sam Lowry said:The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.Oldbear83 said:
Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:
We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?
It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.
In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.
As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?
And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.
Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.
Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.
I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.
That alone should caution a reasonable mind to look deeper before accepting one side's claims.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier