this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
412 points (98.8% liked)
World News
32285 readers
1 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not the one defending paedophiles.
If I had to pick which person is exhibiting
behavior in a discussion where one side is playing devil's advocate for a dude who had 2 small children in his hotel room in an area known for kidnapping and child sex abuse, and another is saying the obvious despite not technically having strong evidence beyond the previously stated, my finger's on the guy that doesn't understand burden of proof.
Ill let you simmer that burden of proof comment real quick
The proof is the article, the burden of proof to provide a comparable case of someone who happened to be doing the most suspicious thing possible and was crucified by the media, yet turned out to be innocent, is on you.
There's confusion. I've maintained that to me, the goalpost is conviction. I cited an article that's less damning for sure but I still motivate my goalpost by principles, not examples. It's simpler to rely on an already established baseline, which is the justice system's convictions, and I'm okay if that means that sometimes, a very plausibly guilty man benefits from undeserved anonimity
But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments
People like to be tough on crime, but I don't like people who feel the need to do justice themselves
Homeowners who murder people should be thrown in jail.
Pedophiles should be thrown in jail.
Very easy and simple to say.
I don't understand how you gotta keep running defense for pedophiles.
We all know exactly why this user feels the need to defend pedophiles. We're just too polite to say it.
I understand the burden of proof but the guy isn't in a court.
He travelled to an area known for sex trafficking and was caught in a hotel room with 2 children he had no earthly connection to and was arrested by police. He decided to bolt the country knowing what he had done was wrong.
It amazing how you keep jumping to different arguments defending the guy when you realise just how fucking tenuous your point is.
Let's examine something else here: nowhere have you shown one iota of concern for those children. Nothing about living in an area with obvious poverty that they are easily swept up by sex tourists and abused.
Not anything for the sex workers who are suffering the brunt of the fallout from this with the police chief using it to beat them with.
You're only concern is for an American, very likely white collar worker who has travelled overseas to an area known for sex trafficking and has been caught in a hotel with two children.
That is where your concern lays.