Daniel

I'm just an educator living a quiet life. Please don't disturb me.

[Daniel @torohaha]

Oh, that's your misunderstanding.

Democratic states oppose the disclosure of the records needed to investigate and search for evidence. Arguing that an incident never happened simply because you were denied access to the house where it allegedly occurred and therefore could not gather evidence is an extraordinarily delusional line of reasoning.

[Daniel @torohaha]

It seems that, because your country is so small, there has not been enough public discussion about the nature of law. No one argues that court decisions should simply be "believed." Court rulings are subject to error and are always open to criticism and review.

For example, in the United States, countless cases have been overturned through appeals and retrials. Take the case of Alton Logan. He was sentenced to life imprisonment largely based on witness testimony and spent many years behind bars. He was eventually released after the attorneys involved in the case revealed that they had long known he was not the actual murderer.

That is why we do not automatically regard a verdict based solely on people's words as a sound decision. Such judgments carry a significant risk of being wrong. Sensible people, therefore, ask, "What evidence was the verdict based on?"

Perhaps in your country, asking such questions is discouraged, or perhaps people are simply not educated to think about legal judgments in this way.

So let me ask again: what is your basis for claiming that this verdict was justified? Are you relying solely on witness testimony, or is there undeniable evidence to support it?

[Daniel @torohaha]

That is because you are seriously mistaken. At the time, the United States operated under a national-origins quota immigration system. This system favored immigrants from countries such as the United Kingdom, while severely restricting those from Southern European countries like Italy and Greece, as well as Eastern European countries such as Poland and Russia.

Emanuel Celler, a congressman from New York, had long listened to the concerns of Eastern European Jewish and Italian immigrant communities. He argued that it was contradictory to treat the citizens of Southern and Eastern European countries—America's diplomatic allies and partners—as inferior immigrants, and he introduced legislation to address that inconsistency.

It was completely unrelated to Black Americans or the civil rights movement.

https://t.co/QoLlXegBwa

[Daniel @torohaha]

Not at all. This legislation was originally intended to increase immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, whose populations were overwhelmingly white. At the time, one of the major issues was that immigrants already living in the United States faced significant obstacles in reuniting with their families. The law was designed to alleviate those difficulties.

What happened, however, was that relatively few Europeans came, while immigration from Asia surged instead. That was the unexpected outcome.

[Daniel @torohaha]

I'm sorry, but this was a jury trial. The judge imposes penalties based on the jury's findings. That's why I've been asking you to tell me what evidence the jury relied on, yet you still haven't been able to provide even a single piece of it.

Is that really how you were taught to debate in school?

[Daniel @torohaha]

@WilliamHj15 @IKNOWDRAGON @greg_price11 What evidence or reasoning do you base that conclusion on?

I am really curious.

[Daniel @torohaha]

That's where people like you, who place their trust in authority, differ from us.
You seem to believe that whatever information the media provides is authoritative to be followed. We, on the other hand, try to base our conclusions on facts and evidence, and we believe that individuals should examine the evidence and make up their own minds.

Because of that mindset, you assume everyone else must think the same way you do.
We don't place our trust in the media.
We are not people who live under what we see as the authority of information.

[Daniel @torohaha]

@JesusFartsToo @RileyTurne485 @greg_price11 There is still no evidence.
People are free to dislike someone that's their right.
But when those feelings cause them to believe things or see things that aren't actually supported by evidence, that becomes a form of delusion. We call that TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

[Daniel @torohaha]

@JTimm26 @greg_price11 Thank you for providing additional information.
What I find astonishing is that a jury composed of New Yorkers concluded that those hearsay-like accounts were probably true simply because they sounded plausible. To me, that judgment is difficult to comprehend.

[Daniel @torohaha]

@jcm4ccc @greg_price11 Your belief is not evidence.
So tell me, what do you consider to be the undeniable evidence in this case?

As far as I know, the only evidence accepted by the court in that case was testimony, words, and nothing more.

[Daniel @torohaha]

@RileyTurne485 @greg_price11 Exactly, that's my point.

"Someone said he did it, therefore it must be true."

Doesn't that sound like a very New York-style jury to you?

[Daniel @torohaha]

@WilliamHj15 @greg_price11 I'm sorry. I don't know how things work in your country, but in the United States, we have a principle called the presumption of innocence. Are people in your country punished simply because someone says they did something? That's an interesting system.

[Daniel @torohaha]

There are still far too many people in the comments who don't understand this, so let me explain it again in a way even elementary school students can understand.

Whether someone really did something wrong or not is determined by evidence. If there is no evidence and all you have is "someone said he did it," and you simply believe that claim without proof, we usually call that irrational.

We've seen examples of this before, haven't we? In Britain, there was a case where the attacker claimed that the victim was a racist, and the police ended up handcuffing the victim. There are many people in this world who are willing to accept accusations without first establishing the facts.

[Daniel @torohaha]

Many people seem to misunderstand this case. It was not a criminal trial but a civil lawsuit. The case was based on a woman who, more than 25 years later, claimed that she had been raped, along with testimony from friends who said she told them about the incident at the time. There was no physical evidence. Ultimately, the jury concluded that rape had not been proven, but that some form of sexual abuse had occurred, based on the testimony and surrounding circumstances.

In my view, this is why there has been so much controversy surrounding the case. I hope others do not misunderstand the verdict and end up, like that lawmaker, facing enormous financial penalties because of mistaken assumptions.

[Daniel @torohaha]

@BadBhuddist @Thefactsdude Didn’t the court acknowledge that the son shouted “Gun!” first, and that the father fired because he believed his son was in danger?

It feels like you are strangely trying to distort the facts.

[Daniel @torohaha]

There is no such thing as a narrow definition of democracy. As a tool, democracy is simply a method of decision-making. As an idea, it is often used to justify giving priority to the collective over the individual, particularly in socialist states. Norway is one of the most prominent examples. It is a classic social-democratic state.

The reason you don't understand this is that your country was never a monarchy that overthrew its old system and became a republic. I understand.

[Daniel @torohaha]

Democracy has two definitions. One is a tool: collective decisions are made by the people. The other is an idea: the people themselves are the source of political authority.

However, when democracy is understood as a tool, it means that individual rights can be overridden by collective decision-making. When it is understood as an idea, the outcome depends on how "the people" are defined, which can transform society into one where a particular group is treated as the highest priority.

A constitutional republic means something entirely different. It is a system in which the public interest takes precedence, and government is governed according to principles and limits established by the Constitution.

[Daniel @torohaha]

@b56460478 @GuntherEagleman ya how so? Explain. I am really curious.