• librechad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Thanks for your input. I understand that not everyone agrees with the jury’s decision. My point was not to say that the verdict inherently proves moral rightness, but rather that legally, according to the standards of the trial and the statutes in Wisconsin, his actions were deemed self-defense. We can discuss the moral implications separately, but from a legal standpoint, the verdict was clear.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s completely inane. It’s literally just circular logic. You’re arguing that the jury’s decision proves that he was legally innocent, and that that proves the jury made the right call. By that logic, had the jury found him guilty, under the exact same circumstances, that would prove that he violated the law and that they made the right call. It’s literally just licking the boot of the legal system, your argument rests on the assumption that innocent people are never wrongfully convicted and guilty people never found innocent, which is blatantly false.

      • librechad
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I understand your perspective. My intention wasn’t to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It’s crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.