- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,815
- 12,954
I partly disagree with this. Technically yes, in forming a personal or even public opinion there's no need to presume innocence until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. But I do think our default position on any claim made should be caution and at least some sort of half-decent assessment of all the available evidence before coming to a more firm opinion on where the likely truth lies. Trial by media/social media has become a major blight on our society and the eagerness of people to pile in on accused persons is very problematic.
I get what you're saying, and speculation and forming a preliminary opinion on things we hear/read are human nature, especially when a subject person has past form. That's fine, to a point. I just think it's sensible to be careful when accusations are made, especially if only one side has made their case and the sources are unclear.
Oh come on, do you need to be in court to be a decent human being?
I mean think for second, here's a guy who's been out of hockey for an extended period of time and the 1st thing on his agenda is go through his players phones?
That's f***in' stupid. Stupid is who put this shit out there and stupid is who repeated it . The stupidest of all are those who believed it.
As I said, he's done some questionable stuff before, so he gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Perhaps this helps rehab that thinking, perhaps not. Only time will tell.