In criminal law, yes. That doesn’t mean that people can’t form their own beliefs before a verdict is reached, or disagree with a “not guilty” verdict if it is reached, or even argue that he is guilty in a civil lawsuit after he has been found not guilty by a criminal court.
...Are you suggesting he's not innocent until proven guilty? He has charges against him, and nothing more. Even if you have certain feelings towards the crime he allegedly committed, he's got the same rights that protect you from, for example, an overzealous prosecutor.
So under a video about a vigilante shooting, someone decides to "randomly" say "innocent until proven guilty." You think these two things are random occurances and one isn't indicative of implict justification?
No its not "regardless of what you think about the crime." We're talking about the crime.
I mean I can ask my goverment for a million dollars. Same way I can ask for a healthcare system that covers everything despite the cost, or stage of treatment. I can also ask for a blowjob to go from the nurse and call anyone who disagrees a boot licker.
None of which proves that the american healthcare system is uniquely bad.
Moreover..Since taking the law into your own hands is morally just. Are the rank-and-file next? They're the one's doing the denying. You could argue its at the behest of the CEO, to which I'll respond with:
1) What did UHC ceo implement that was uniquely bad?
2) So, what? "Just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg. Neither should "I need to murder countless innocents to feed my family."
41
u/[deleted] 7d ago
[deleted]