No, that's not what you said. Wow, you sure are a republican! Your "recap" is a spin to clean it up hoping others won't check. You said "...this clearly needs to be said. You (me, us, we .... not "Hillary") are not guilty in this country until you (me, us, we) are tried and convicted. Being investigated doesn't mean a damn thing. Being indicted doesn't mean a damn thing. Until you (me, us, we) are tried and convicted, you (me, us, we) are presumed innocent."I'll recap it for them:
Me: (Keep in mind I'm defending Hillary Clinton here even as an ardent Republican)... She is innocent until proven guilty. Not innocent until investigated, not innocent until indicted, innocent until tried and convicted.
Then I listed 25 people who were not arrested, not charged, not investigated, not indicted, not tried, but killed while unarmed. This shows your idealism about "innocent until proven guilty" is just that: idealism, . . . --not reality.
It's clear to everyone else now. And you?Not sure what I am supposed to take away here....what does this have to do with the underlying premise of innocent until proven guilty.
I think at this point I need not say anything. It's been said and it's clear.You: You are quite good at drawing the wrong lessons and conclusions. Heck, ANYTHING to avoid saying the system needs to be changed, eh? (emphasis mine) You're blind to class discrimination even as you participate in it.
Me: Again, I will continue to advocate for and defend a system that demands someone is innocent until proven guilty. Does the system break down - of course. Does that mean the system is wrong? No.