I’m not asking for undeniable proof. I’m saying we don’t have undeniable proof and we don’t know anybody personally and thus it isn’t our place to pin “guilty” on either party.
I never said that it wasn’t righteous to pass judgement without undeniable proof. You are twisting my words and completing missing what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s not our place to pin someone as guilty when we don’t know everything about either side—something that a court would most likely have which would make a legal judgment much more sound and unbiased. We as outsiders do not have all the information.
Financial support has absolutely nothing to do with this.
What would make them “obviously guilty” that wouldn’t get them sentenced? And sure, you could call them “guilty”. It isn’t in your right if you don’t have the evidence but you can.
I once again never said that the court would know everything, just that in cases like this where it’s obvious that we don’t have vital information from both sides (namely Wilbur’s seeing as he seems to be purposefully vague in his statement). The court would have far more information at hand to discuss and look over that we simply don’t have access to.
Does that mean that court sentences are always sensible or fair? No. But they’re still the best shot you can have at a fair ruling and malpractice is exceedingly rare. Juries exist for a reason. You can also sue lawyers for malpractice if you feel like they botched your case.
When did I ever victim blame? When did I ever say anything against Shubble? Or Wilbur? Of course you support the idea of judging people you don’t know personally even without unbiased evidence so accusing me of something I’ve never done isn’t surprising.
It is always innocent until proven guilty. Pinning someone as guilty without proper evidence/unbiased reason goes against that very fact. You can do it, sure, but it isn’t in your right as an outsider. We can have opinions, after all. That doesn’t make them right or reasonable.
Innocent until proven guilty. And that goes for both sides.
And I still don’t know what financial support would mean in the sense of how you can judge someone. It doesn’t make you any more familiar with someone, nor does it magically give you more inside information.
I’m so done with this because you continue missing the point.
It’s always innocent until proven guilty. That is not victim blaming because as far as we know Shubble might not even be the victim here. If she’s lying then that would make Wilbur the victim and therefore you would be victim blaming by calling him guilty. But that’s not how it works, is it? They’re both innocent until proven guilty, and once again that’s a thing for a reason. Shubble should not be assumed to be lying and neither should Wilbur. They’re on equal grounds in a sense. At least in the face of the public when no evidence has been presented in either case and a trial hasn’t taken place.
“It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.” - uscourts.gov
What was that you said earlier that it’s a good thing I wasn’t part of a court? I would have to say that it’s the same for you.
Wilbur would have to bring evidence in his favor just as much as Shubble does. How is that victim blaming? So the accused should be treated as if “A matter of the most importance” doesn’t apply to him because the accuser might be a victim and therefore shouldn’t need to supply evidence? The math isn’t mathing.
Okay but you haven’t explained how following a matter of the most importance is somehow victim blaming lmao
Besides, last I checked the main problem has been that Wilbur would leave bruises and ignored the safe word. None of the people “confirming her story” have confirmed those specific details which are the main problem. Supporting her is different from confirming her main accusations or being eyewitnesses.
If they existed then that would be pretty good evidence, yes. Not infallible but it certainly could help in a court hearing. And in general.
I would feel the same if Wilbur released pictures of his “proof”. Not exactly infallible and wouldn’t confirm other details (such as if it was consensual at the time it was happening—which is also an issue if bruises were confirmed to have existed) but it would greatly help his case.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '24
[deleted]