The city’s mayor Federico Gutiérrez announces the six-month suspension of sex work in the neighborhood El Poblado and limits operating hours of the bars and clubs in the area, in which he says sex trafficking is taking place
He is not someone like the guy framed by all the Reddit imbecilic sluths after the Boston marathon bombings, nor is he like Christopher Jefferies, accused by the media of murdering one of his tenants, just because he’s a bit eccentric.
The guy was caught in a hotel room with children in an area known for sex tourism & he chose to bolt the country after his arrest.
Not exactly the “smoke without fire” examples that you could scour the internet all day long for.
If you don’t want your name released after being arrested in a hotel with local children entirely unrelated to you, then maybe don’t invite local children up to your hotel and be getting arrested.
Like I said previously, I find it incredibly fucking easy not to be a child raping paedophile. It’s so easy that very little thought goes into it so I don’t have to deal with the consequences of even it being inferred despite no evidence of any crime having taken place.
Do you realize how certain one has to be to accuse a person of such a crime?
Would you want to live in a world where 1 of 100 considered guilty is innocent?
Would you feel the same way if you’d be that?
Do you realize how probabilities work?
If something has a 1 in a 1000 probability, then from time to time it happens.
And then the final question - do you consider it too much of a bother to go through investigative process with civilized legal proceedings to confirm what is true and reduce the probability of a mistake?
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.
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 used by sex workers, with two children.
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
This comment gives me hope. I hate all the reddit kneejerk reactionaries. Sure, he may be a scumbag, but perhaps we should make sure beyond a reasonable doubt first.
I just picked the first one when you google “media ruined life”
It’s a matter of principle
There’s hundreds of examples, pick your favorite
Again, not really comparable.
He is not someone like the guy framed by all the Reddit imbecilic sluths after the Boston marathon bombings, nor is he like Christopher Jefferies, accused by the media of murdering one of his tenants, just because he’s a bit eccentric.
The guy was caught in a hotel room with children in an area known for sex tourism & he chose to bolt the country after his arrest.
Not exactly the “smoke without fire” examples that you could scour the internet all day long for.
If you don’t want your name released after being arrested in a hotel with local children entirely unrelated to you, then maybe don’t invite local children up to your hotel and be getting arrested.
Like I said previously, I find it incredibly fucking easy not to be a child raping paedophile. It’s so easy that very little thought goes into it so I don’t have to deal with the consequences of even it being inferred despite no evidence of any crime having taken place.
Do you realize how certain one has to be to accuse a person of such a crime?
Would you want to live in a world where 1 of 100 considered guilty is innocent?
Would you feel the same way if you’d be that?
Do you realize how probabilities work?
If something has a 1 in a 1000 probability, then from time to time it happens.
And then the final question - do you consider it too much of a bother to go through investigative process with civilized legal proceedings to confirm what is true and reduce the probability of a mistake?
“Blah blah blah I’m defending paedophiles”
That’s what your wall of text is saying.
My wall of text is saying that you want innocent people to be condemned, fighting against failsafe for that.
Thus you are a criminal and should hang.
Some people
I’m not the one defending paedophiles.
You’re an idiot. Why don’t you go back to reddit instead of trying to make this place feel like it?
Why don’t you fuck off back to where all the jailbait subs disappeared to and stop trying to turn this place into a paedo meet up, you fucking nonce
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
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 used by sex workers, with two children.
That is where your concern lays.
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
This comment gives me hope. I hate all the reddit kneejerk reactionaries. Sure, he may be a scumbag, but perhaps we should make sure beyond a reasonable doubt first.
You are attacking civilized people who are trying to tell you that a lynching crowd is not the society.
So where’s the lynching crowd aside from in all your imaginations?
Where apes are claiming due process is not necessary where it’ll either yield the same result or they are wrong.
You are literally fighting mechanism which will help only innocent.