I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing your arguments against this case to the same arguments made about the McDonald's case. It's not about the cases themselves, but our ignorance of them.
You've presented a single vague summary of the defense argument (and given the non-guilty verdict and the article's presentation, is probably biased as well, but I reserve judgment).
So it seems you really know very little given the evidence I've seen so far, and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.
>and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.
I'd appreciate that you not make accusations like this, and I think this violates HN conduct guidelines.
In any case. I've presented evidence that includes quotes from the testimony. You're argument rests on the jury having deliberated for 30 minutes. Juries are incredibly stupid. They can be misled, they can and do get things wrong, all the time.
My argument can be summed up as "the jury is wrong, here's why". Your counterargument is "the jury disagrees with you". And to that I'd say "duh, that's why I said they're wrong". Using the Jury's conclusion as a counterargument to the statement "The jury is incorrect" is not an argument.
No, your argument can be summed up as, "based on these paltry and selectively quoted statements, I know better than a group of my peers who actually have all of the facts at their disposal."
Your argument is frankly absurd, and not only will I double down on calling this argument disturbing, it's also arrogant. You are ignorant of all the facts and literally saying you don't need them to decide that this group of people is stupider than you, and that you can discern the truth based on a single, brief article about this trial.
Finally, I made no accusation, I pointed out simple, obvious flaws in your argument. I made no claim about the defendant's innocence or guilt, but questioned your apparently unjustified certainty about the outcome. Calling juries stupid is not brave or insightful. Everyone is stupid. I'm stupid, and you're stupid. The fact that you think you're less stupid and don't need all the facts to ascertain the truth is also stupid.
Go ahead and report me if you think I violated posting guidelines. Let someone else decide who is being more impartial.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Your statements about "absurdity" and "arrogance" are unwarranted. And you're now also putting words in my mouth. I won't be responding further.
Yeah, which would be relevant if I hadn't literally had to repeat myself 5 times in this thread. "Unwarranted", these labels are not. Labeling the argument "absurd" and "arrogant" is pretty much all that's left to do at this point, so I'll just leave it at that.
You're correct, we weren't in the courtroom, but that doesn't make juries infallible.
reply