Why the hell would you ever plead to something you didn't do if you had the resources to fight it? I get how they might pressure some kid into a plea, but they'd be taking my ass to trial, and yes, I'd gladly pay the legal fees if it came to it, over basically selling out my good name.
It's scary how people immediately side with authorities in these situations. You can lose everything in an instant by getting charged with something nefarious and it just takes a couple of bad cops.
I'm not 'siding with the authorities', I'm advocating fighting if you're innocent. Plea'ing out when you're innocent just encourages this sort of abuse. If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself. Civil rights are only upheld when they're exercised.
You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty, which is a perverse argument given the immense cost and general toll a legal defense can impose on a person.
> If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself.
Yes, that is precisely why the system is stacked against the average person being able to fight the State on criminal charges, and it is very out of touch to imply that anyone that the State has convicted presumably deserved it for not putting up an effective defense.
The system is working as intended on you and I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal prosecution.
> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty
I can see how one could get this implication because they said "why would you" but that's a common phrase that people use to (I guess literally) call some decision into question. It's not necessarily about saying that they are obviously lying and could be more about wondering why someone would make that choice. The reply made a good case, which they don't seem to be arguing with.
Because you're curious for the answer to your question. Why would you think there must be some other implication? (What did I imply by using that phrase in the previous question?)
Well, no. The phrasing suggests some bit of outrage to me, which has its own problems but is still easier to interact with if one is looking to understand their perspective. I suppose it sounds more exclusively like an accusation to you. More likely than either of those is that it’s a combination of several factors which ultimately culminated in the person’s decision to leave their comment.
Regardless, the claim that they must have been making an accusation is speculation which is called out in the guidelines to avoid:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
What exactly is your point? Am I not allowed to point out the fundamental failure of ethics in jumping to the conclusion that someone who didn't put up a fight when wronged by a vastly more powerful entity is somehow enabling the wrongdoing?
You should not be so afraid of engaging with other perspectives. You can choose your own beliefs and it doesn’t hep to close your mind to others. Read the thread back and you may find consistent arguing if you understand that my actual conclusion was written above.
Of course, you would have to read comments in good faith and I suspect you would not. I would be foolish to believe you will even try because you it’s obvious by now that you have no such desire to understand other perspectives. I recommend fostering such a desire. You only have pleasant discourse with those you agree with and you cause that problem.
Because in real speech with real people in my real life, expressions like "Why would you do x" are nearly exclusively rhetorical and unambiguously accusatory.
Similarly, I have heard expressions like "Why would you do x" and "Why would you think y" as questions being asked with curiosity. I've also seen how my perception of their intentions has been distorted such that I would not believe they are simply trying to understand. That isn't to say the phrasing does not seem to trigger such a response (I personally think it sounds hostile in text), it is to say that I can take them at their word when they tell me they did not have that intention. I will, however, concede that the phrase seems to be more commonly said with hostile ignorance rather than humble curiosity.
But... that's kinda beside the point which I did not seem to have made clearly. The original assumption of that person's decision to write that phrase is that it is intended as an accusation to this thread's OP that their brother was actually selling heroin. They do not seem to have made that specific accusation. Recall what I originally replied to:
> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty
That is decidedly not what they were implying, if they were implying anything.
> Stealing is wrong even when it is stupid people who are doing stupid things that are stolen from.
It’s plain cowardice to accuse me of disagreeing with this and subsequently run away from the conversation. You are god-awful at empathy. Learn some emotional intelligence.
