• President_Pyrus@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I respect it by accepting the outcome of the legal process, even if I don’t like it, not by tying myself up in conversational knots.

    I, for one, will continue to say that he committed crimes, because he did. Whether he’s convicted is different matter.

    English may be my second language, but isn’t those pretty contradictory?

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “I already believe he is guilty” is an opinion which does not violate the legal process unless you’re in the juror’s box or otherwise involved in the justice system prosecuting him.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think so. One is a statement of (perceived) fact. The other the outcome of a process. Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. At least, in a just world. There are too many people convicted by a court of law who did not commit a crime, and I’m not going to call them criminals.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings.

        Being accused of committing a crime is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. Many people commit crimes and get away with it because they have no accusers. Many others are defendants who are accused, but did not actually commit any crime. I’m not saying that Trump didn’t commit crimes (it’s pretty obvious that he did), but I am pointing out that it is the accusation and being formally charged that causes one to be prosecuted. In my mind, it’s an important distinction.

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair point, and a good elaboration. That dovetails with my thinking, too. If a house gets robbed and there’s no evidence who did it, we still call it a crime, even without a conviction in court. If we accuse somebody of it, that’s a good use of “accused criminal” in the colloquial sense.

          • BaldProphet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I probably should have elaborated further in my first comment. The average Fediverse user seems to be highly reactionary, and I shouldn’t have assumed that people would read deeper into what I was trying to say.