Then maybe celebrating the legal defense fund for paying lawyers to defend the accused person is?
You should be ashamed were you to insinuate that getting a good lawyer is a bad thing.
No, I really mean it.
We don’t know whether Luigi did what he got accused of.
And we’re not the ones who judge.
Given that the trial is held in a country where only lots of money gets you good medical support and good legal representation, I’m glad there a funds to pay for good legal representation.
That’s it.
The headline is “crowd raises money to defend innocent man accused of crimes”.
I don’t know where you’re getting that we’re celebrating murder. You won’t even accept that you’re jumping to conclusions. You’ve got a lot of assumptions built into that head of yours sir.
But I don’t say you’re evil, I say you are dishonest. You just want to defend an “innocent man accused of crimes”, but this particular man and this particular crime - pure coincidence! Your dishonesty is plain as day. You want to defend a murderer because you think he was right to murder, you think that his unarmed victim deserved to expire in a pool of his own blood on the sidewalk. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I don’t see you standing up for all murder victims. You’re ONLY here in this thread defending this specific murder victim. Your dishonesty is plain as day. It’s clear that you think the rich should not face the social consequences of their actions. You think that as long as someone follows the law they should be able to harm as many people as they want as long as they create shareholder value. The fact that this is the murder victim you’re defending is pure coincidence! You act like you just want everyone around you to have “honest discussions” but you hide your own convictions. At least have the courage of your convictions.
My convictions are easy to express: I’m against first-degree murder. It really is that simple. And you are not.
To be clear, I’m also against judicial killing (capital punishment) in all circumstances. For exactly the same reason: it is never right to kill a defenseless person who poses no immediate threat to you. End of story. This is about as watertight a morality as you could ask for.
This is also roughly the teaching of the Catholic church. But I’m not a Catholic, nor even a pacifist.
I’m looking forward to your “honest debate” in every thread related to murder and capital punishment, but I know this is the only victim you’ll be defending in the near future. While you accuse others of dishonesty, it’s classic projection of your own moral fallings.
When posters say their convictions are simple “innocent until proven guilty and having the right to competent defense” they’re dishonest because “this is the only thread we’re in, what a coincidence /s”. Why the same logic doesn’t apply to you is a mystery.
Also this wasn’t first degree murder in New York, that is reserved for the premeditated murder of specific classes of people such as law enforcement. If you’re going to have these “clear and easy to express convictions” at least be accurate and clear about it.
I had you tagged as “conservative pseudointellectual” from previous interactions and it’s been accurate EVERY TIME I run into you. You consistently defend capitalism and conservatism, and now Catholicism for some reason? Against the interestes of the population in general.
Then maybe celebrating the legal defense fund for paying lawyers to defend the accused person is?
You should be ashamed were you to insinuate that getting a good lawyer is a bad thing.
That’s a disingenuous argument and you know it is.
No, I really mean it.
We don’t know whether Luigi did what he got accused of.
And we’re not the ones who judge.
Given that the trial is held in a country where only lots of money gets you good medical support and good legal representation, I’m glad there a funds to pay for good legal representation.
That’s it.
The headline is “crowd raises money to defend innocent man accused of crimes”.
I don’t know where you’re getting that we’re celebrating murder. You won’t even accept that you’re jumping to conclusions. You’ve got a lot of assumptions built into that head of yours sir.
Again, this is plainly dishonest, but I’ll read it as repressed guilt. After all, you’re (presumably) a human being with a moral compass.
Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is evil or dishonest. That’s how you know that YOU’RE the only one engaging in honest open discussion.
But I don’t say you’re evil, I say you are dishonest. You just want to defend an “innocent man accused of crimes”, but this particular man and this particular crime - pure coincidence! Your dishonesty is plain as day. You want to defend a murderer because you think he was right to murder, you think that his unarmed victim deserved to expire in a pool of his own blood on the sidewalk. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I don’t see you standing up for all murder victims. You’re ONLY here in this thread defending this specific murder victim. Your dishonesty is plain as day. It’s clear that you think the rich should not face the social consequences of their actions. You think that as long as someone follows the law they should be able to harm as many people as they want as long as they create shareholder value. The fact that this is the murder victim you’re defending is pure coincidence! You act like you just want everyone around you to have “honest discussions” but you hide your own convictions. At least have the courage of your convictions.
My convictions are easy to express: I’m against first-degree murder. It really is that simple. And you are not.
To be clear, I’m also against judicial killing (capital punishment) in all circumstances. For exactly the same reason: it is never right to kill a defenseless person who poses no immediate threat to you. End of story. This is about as watertight a morality as you could ask for.
This is also roughly the teaching of the Catholic church. But I’m not a Catholic, nor even a pacifist.
I’m looking forward to your “honest debate” in every thread related to murder and capital punishment, but I know this is the only victim you’ll be defending in the near future. While you accuse others of dishonesty, it’s classic projection of your own moral fallings.
When posters say their convictions are simple “innocent until proven guilty and having the right to competent defense” they’re dishonest because “this is the only thread we’re in, what a coincidence /s”. Why the same logic doesn’t apply to you is a mystery.
Also this wasn’t first degree murder in New York, that is reserved for the premeditated murder of specific classes of people such as law enforcement. If you’re going to have these “clear and easy to express convictions” at least be accurate and clear about it.
I had you tagged as “conservative pseudointellectual” from previous interactions and it’s been accurate EVERY TIME I run into you. You consistently defend capitalism and conservatism, and now Catholicism for some reason? Against the interestes of the population in general.