Submitted by enforcedcompliance in lobby (edited )

Because while going on a rant about democrats this and far left that, I asked him what would be assumed if someone was fighting to NOT have witnesses at a trial and before I could finish he literally put his fingers in his ear and called me a snowflake. Hahahahahaha. Sorry, just had to share this gold.

6

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

It's strange how his supporters go on about the importance of their whole system, including the judicial system, but also have no problem ignoring blatant manipulation of said system. 🤔🤔🤔

4

yugfgpo wrote

what would be assumed if someone was fighting to NOT have witnesses at a trial

I've done this before as a defendant. What would be assumed?

Defendants have the right to do defendant things. Trials shouldn't be railroads.

Would you like cops/judge/jury/public/media to assume guilt if you didn't speak without your lawyer? If you declined to unlock your laptop?

The attitude of "legal defense = guilt" is anti-justice.

−3

[deleted] wrote

2

[deleted] wrote

2

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

The entire system is broken (by this I mean it works perfectly to it's design). Burn the courts and hang the lawyers/cops/judges.

9

[deleted] wrote

2

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

If I committed a crime and told the court I WILL NOT ACCEPT WITNESSES TO SPEAK AGAINST ME they would laugh and do it anyway. Those in power are protected by others in power even when their goals appear to be different.

6

yugfgpo wrote

The logic in the top-level post is, "Because this person is defending themselves in the trial, we can assume their guilt"

That's not how justice goes. You're supposed to defend yourself.

−4

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

You're just a bootlicker who doesn't even know what so-called justice is -- for you it seems to be exploitation -- no wonder we have so much corruption. It is your job though.

If you think powerful men manipulating facts and barring evidence is justice then wow.

2

yugfgpo wrote

You're the one who thinks there should be assumption of guilt in trials. That's peak bootlicking.

−1

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

The best way to win is to hide evidence. Genius! Wait, I mean JUSTICE.

The attitude of "legal defense = guilt" is anti-justice.

The powerful protecting the powerful while eveyone else gets shit on isn't justice either.

2

yugfgpo wrote

Have you ever been a defendant?

−4

enforcedcompliance OP wrote

Stop ignoring what I'm saying and injecting what you think I am saying. There is no justice in a system where ANYONE can hide evidence. You're just as much of a bootlicker as those in power. This is the problem with 'radical,' lawyers... in the end you'll always end up reinforcing the worst parts of the 'justice,' system.

2

broslo wrote (edited )

I saw several of your comments that involve throwing low-level insults at people that don't think like you. Could you avoid assuming everyone's a cop just because they got a different, or more detached perspective?

0

enforcedcompliance OP wrote (edited )

Ewwwwwwwwwwww, you're one of THOSE and by those I mean A COP TRYING TO ENFORCE YOUR WILL ON ME. >:(

Would it be better if I held your little hand and agreed with you?

1

burnthecourts wrote (edited )

When did anyone say anyone was a cop?

1

yugfgpo wrote (edited )

There is no justice in a system where ANYONE can hide evidence.

This is an absurd argument. Of course universal privacy rights are compatible with justice.

By capitalizing 'ANYONE', you seem to be saying that some people should have a privilege (French for 'private law') of privacy rights, but that others should not. So how do we decide who the privilege applies to and not?

−1