Moments after Luigi Mangione was handcuffed at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, a police officer searching his backpack found a loaded gun magazine wrapped in a pair of underwear.
The discovery, recounted in court Monday as Mangione fights to keep evidence out of his New York murder case, convinced police in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that he was the man wanted in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan five days earlier.
And we can’t trust the “innocence” of every criminal either. So where does that leave us?
It leaves us reading your sentence wondering when you will complete a basic civics course.
I’m guessing the word “criminal” to you means innocent person?
For fuck’s sake, I was told there is zero nuance to be understood here. I didn’t think I’d have to explain simple concepts like what a criminal is.
Civics course indeed.
They’re replying in context with the post. Luigi is not a criminal and will not be one unless/until convicted by the court.
If you’re speaking in generalities then that is the nuance that needs clarification in your earlier comment.
And I’m replying in context to the comment I responded to. I’m seeing now that it isn’t that lemmy lacks nuance, it’s that lemmy chooses what nuance to allow.
No thats just how american law works lmao
every person is innocent by default. complete and trusted. it’s the gov’s job to PROPERLY prove guilt.
That I said CRIMINALS, implies that I’m talking about people who are NOT innocent.
And I didn’t say how our system of law should perceive them, I said that they will all claim to be innocent.
deleted by creator
We presume innocence. Burden is on proving guilt. That’s where it leaves us.
Note how I said, “criminal”. This implies that we already know they are guilty- yet they’ll claim innocence.
My point is, this works both ways.