News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
How is this not an instant mistrial?
Because they've never even tried to bother to pretend this is going to be a fair trial.
Which tells me that they have no evidence whatsoever and he is innocent.
He's actually innocent. But they need a scapegoat to make the rich class feel safe.
There is no reason to believe he's innocent. I hate rich people that kill people with their disgusting and shitty decisions too but I don't think he is literally innocent of putting holes in the CEO's body.
Fortunately this is not how criminal courts work. Or at least not how they're supposed to. You don't have to prove your innocence, they have to prove that you are guilty.
If you think he put holes in that CEO, prove it.
You are owed a day in court and all due process before the government punishes you.
You aren't owed an unlimed presumption of innocence by the general public who can and do read and come to reasonable conclusions in their own time.
Everyone knew that the Menendez brothers did it before the trial and everyone knew OJ did it after the trial even before he wrote a book about how he did it entitled "if I did it"
It's weird that you can't distinguish between what you are owed morally in the court of public opinion and what you are owed legally in criminal court.
I'd like to wait and see what happens at the trial before declaring him innocent or guilty. Just like any conspiracy theory in the past there are plenty of reasons to believe he is innocent. It does seem that he is probably the person but what I've seen and read hasn't convinced me beyond a shadow.
The liars in charge of our government keep saying this is the guy, and we should kill him. I find that super suss.
It's not weird that I'm waiting for more info before forming an opinion.
It is much more weird that you're taking the word of police at face value. If you want to kill him so badly, prove it.
He was photographed both at and near the scene and found with the gun. His innocent plea is pro forma because it is their job to defend him and there is always hope of creating reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury even when its not at all reasonable. There is no reason for us to be stupid about it. There are not in fact "plenty of reasons" there are no good reasons at all. Again we are bound by law to give him every benefit of the doubt AT TRIAL. We can entirely reasonably conclude amongst ourselves that he is guilty as sin and still let the trial play out properly.
It's not suss at all. He killed an important person who made their living screwing us. If people copy him a lot of very important very rich, and very harmful people who count themselves the modern day nobility are in danger. They collectively own the fucking nation. It's not weird to see societies moral immune system inflamed at all. If a liar tells you it's raining the fact that they are dishonest doesn't mean its dry out.
I feel like there is hokey in how they caught him. Its still odd that he was "reported by a mcdonalds worker" that doesn't seem to exist.
Where are you getting the idea that the person doesn't seem to exist?
Media crews can easily isolate both the mcdonalds in question and anyone working there. 911 calls are usually recorded. None of that info hit the public afaik.
Why would it when it would surely lead to harassment which would interfere with a witness
I'm not sure thats ever stopped the media before. The case gets eyeballs, sells ads. Its not like they're putting people in witness protection for this.
The real problem here is I think there wasn't a call. I suspect he got caught in some kind of illegal surveillance net.
The regular media often declines to publish such information. The government often keeps such info private. The fact that tabloids haven't dug it up doesn't make it real.