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
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.
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
But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments
People like to be tough on crime, but I don’t like people who feel the need to do justice themselves
But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments
Homeowners who murder people should be thrown in jail.
Pedophiles should be thrown in jail.
Very easy and simple to say.
I don’t understand how you gotta keep running defense for pedophiles.
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 with two children.
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.
Travelling overseas to an area rife with sex trafficking and getting caught in a hotel with 2 children he has absolutely no relation to is to you not beyond a reasonable doubt?
As I’ve said elsewhere, consider that you’ve said nothing of any concern for those children, about the poverty they very likely live in, nor for the sex workers who are being the brunt of the fallout from this.
Your concern is all on the paedo sex tourist caught in a hotel with 2 children.
Removed by mod
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
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
But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments
People like to be tough on crime, but I don’t like people who feel the need to do justice themselves
Homeowners who murder people should be thrown in jail.
Pedophiles should be thrown in jail.
Very easy and simple to say.
I don’t understand how you gotta keep running defense for pedophiles.
We all know exactly why this user feels the need to defend pedophiles. We’re just too polite to say it.
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 with two children.
That is where your concern lays.
Removed by mod
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.
Travelling overseas to an area rife with sex trafficking and getting caught in a hotel with 2 children he has absolutely no relation to is to you not beyond a reasonable doubt?
As I’ve said elsewhere, consider that you’ve said nothing of any concern for those children, about the poverty they very likely live in, nor for the sex workers who are being the brunt of the fallout from this.
Your concern is all on the paedo sex tourist caught in a hotel with 2 children.