What are you talking about? Your responses don’t make sense.
Discussions about this are known to complain there is nothing “concrete” pointing to Mangione’s guilt. Not unfair on its own, I guess. But then the people in these discussions do a 180 when other people are being talked about who they are more inclined to dislike. Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.
We aren’t in your head. We can’t make these connections you’re seeing without more information. Please take the time to write out your thoughts and consider using examples.
Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but allegations of murder must be substantiated with evidence, otherwise they can be libel.
I don’t think anybody on any Lemmy instance has evidence to prove things one way or another.
You can believe he is guilty, but please make it clear that is your belief. It would be a pretty widely shared belief as well. But to claim something so insignificant as concrete evidence of guilt during an active trial is idiotic.
Nonsense, and further he couldn’t be guilty of homicide because insurance ceos aren’t humans.
Animal cruelty perhaps.
If this isn’t a clickbait hed, what is?
An honest question asking about where peoples’ definition of “proof” begins.
protip: put your “honest questions” into comments, not headlines
I didn’t think that would be very fruitful.
In America, where 1 in 3 own guns and there are more guns than people, somehow owning gun related things is incriminating evidence.
It is in the states he was in.
Lol
Lmao even
Insomuch as that shit happens all across the US, sure.
im not dropping my no script for this.
you’re not missing anything important.
Does this prove anything concretely besides his excitement?
No, and having a magazine in a backpack seems like a nothing piece of evidence.
It was wrapped in wet underwear though. A completely irrelevant precision, but a precision nonetheless.
I’ve seen people in the lemmyverse chased out based on less concrete evidence.
PING!
Oh, shit. Sorry. That’s my bullshit detector…
Have you, 22 day old account with this one post and only 5 comments? Have you?
You say that like that must mean I’m new to the community.
Were those same people who were chased out being charged at both the state and federal level with murder?
No, but it presents its own problems to say we have to wait for that specific misdeed to be among the charges to use concrete thinking.
Your definition of concrete must differ from mine. I expect concrete, irrefutable evidence before accepting that somebody is guilty of a crime that carries a potential death penalty. I can only take your definition to be that an unsubstantiated belief must be concrete for some reason.
If you’re just using this to rant about being banned from an instance or something, your metaphor failed when you compared it to a criminal trial. Lemmy instance moderators can ban someone for any reason without it being illegal (usually). There does not need to be evidence of wrongdoing or even an accusation of any.
Why they do accuse people of things then, I wish I knew. Do note that’s just a side discussion in mind though.
My definition of concrete is anything which there couldn’t possibly be any alternate explanation for. The desire for concrete evidence is the main defense against people framing each other. Most of us are lucky to live in a nation where court trials involving full analysis are a given right.
For this reason, I am open to the idea that Mangione might not be guilty. But that seems to be an exception for other people. There have been other celebrities with varying levels of guilt applied to them this year based on how high or low a bar people want to define the word “concrete”. It makes the defense of Mangione, which I would otherwise just chalk up to being generous, as inconsistent. If it has ever seemed like I have advocated for the idea that Mangione is guilty, it doesn’t boil down to me absolutely concluding he is guilty but rather down to the fact that, one, his defense feels forced, and two, people do seem to defend acts of violence these days, even more than a lot of non-violent situations, accusations of which I have seen jeopardize livelihood.
I’ll ignore your last section since that’s a separate discussion and a poor explanation of the situation.
Many people believe Mangione is guilty based on all the evidence. Heck, from what I’ve seen, it seems incredibly likely. However, belief in that isn’t enough to condemn someone to either a life sentence or death penalty. While I might believe he’s guilty, I won’t be the one to state that he is, without a doubt, the one responsible for the murder because I have no evidence of that. This is what due process is for.
Many people don’t want him to be guilty because while he likely broke the law, the morality of his actions is a separate and more complicated matter. Depending on one’s morals, they may feel as though the murder was just. Whether you do or not is up to you. However, a lot of the commentary you’ll see online is going to be based on the commenter’s own personal views on the subject. This doesn’t mean the commenter believes he is innocent of a crime, but they may believe that his actions were just regardless of it being a crime (since law and morals are separate things entirely).
Why?
Because I’ve rarely been seeing a consistent definition of proof be upheld when it comes to discussions of guilt.
Our justice system in a nutshell, no?
I neither deny nor condone this.
You’d need to get very creative with the definition for it to include a random hand gesture …
The fist bump wasn’t or wouldn’t have been the core of the proof. It was just an additional suggestion.
