I don’t fucking care about this guy he is probably not the shooter and you all taking the feds/NYPD word on this need to check youself. You are fucking disgraceful. Any and all Luigi posting is banned from this comm going forward. Do some self crit.
I don’t fucking care about this guy he is probably not the shooter and you all taking the feds/NYPD word on this need to check youself. You are fucking disgraceful. Any and all Luigi posting is banned from this comm going forward. Do some self crit.
That’s expressly for legal proceedings, not shitposts on the internet.
It (presumption of innocence) is also recognized as a human right under article 11 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If you really want to get into rules lawyering:
a) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely understood to be non-binding and lack any actual enforcement mechanism
b) The United States of America never ratified it
c) Even if the above were true, it still doesn’t have any reasonable application here. I as an individual am not infringing on a person’s human rights if I believe they’re guilty of a crime and express that belief, nor is any internet forum that hosts said expressions.
Think about it, it just doesn’t make any sense
You are the one who started rules lawyering by taking something that is broadly accepted as a useful axiom and claiming it only has value in a legal setting. What does the US ratifying it have to do with the value of presumption of innocence as a concept? Doesn’t this reinforce my point that it is valued outside of the judicial setting? That being said I agree you are not infringing on his human rights by believing they are guilty of a crime, and wasn’t insinuating you are. I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I just don’t understand why so many people are so willing to ascribe culpability without demanding proof.
Sure presumption of innocence is a nice thing to do, but I think considering it a broad axiom is a little generous. Its overwhelming application is to prevent the legal system from branding someone as guilty before conviction.
To me the implication of bringing up the UN declaration is it’s something I should hold myself to as a matter of human rights, but like you say I’m not really infringing on them and it doesn’t affect anything in the first place
I’m not super concerned about whether he did it or not because I don’t think he should be punished regardless, so it doesn’t change the calculus for me
I guess I am compelled to agree, based off of the discourse (not our convo, just broadly.)
Yeah, I am frustrated with all the drama and not communicating effectively, I could have been more explicit in my reason for bringing it up in the first place similarly to my interaction with jaywalker further up.
The thing that concerns, or rather frustrates, me is not about him being punished rightly or not so much as the way people were so willing to take up his standard with 0 investigation and claim him as a revolutionary figure. Although, I suppose I shouldn’t even be dragging the lionization shit up again and am just gonna let it go and log off for the weekend.
Logging off is good! I’m gonna try to do that too
Citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights in a forum discussion about whether its OK to shitpost about a hot Italian named Luigi is incredible.
I am not having a conversation here about whether or not it is OK to shitpost about a hot itallian named Luigi, I’ve already made it clear over many threads the last few days I don’t care about the memes as memes. I am making the point that the concept has value outside of a judicial setting and many find presumption of innocence be valuable. People assumed that Luigi was both the guy and guilty from the first headline with zero supporting evidence other than police statements and articles from outlets we would not find credible in any other circumstances.