Footballer cleared of r*pe for the second time, feminists in a shambles - HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS

https://x.com/jessx173/status/1679858853482037248

Context: Man City footballer Benjamin Mendy was found not guilty for raping 5 women back in January, with that jury failing to reach a verdict on two additional charges. Today, a new jury has cleared him of those as well.

Linked tweet:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16893584826256168.webp

Additional tweets:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16893584827186568.webp

https://x.com/antifamouss/status/1679863768505892871

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16893584828017633.webp

https://x.com/ajulestale/status/1679861980528558082

Reddit discussions:

/r/unitedkingdom

/r/soccer

/r/MFCC


Addendum:

/u/jackedtradie has been making troll comments on /r/uk since forever and he gets seething replies every time :marseykneel:

This is the problem with innocent until proven guilty. Men like this get away with whatever they want.

135
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For once the Twitter foids are right. Not guilty does not mean "the jury positively found that he didn't do it". It means "the prosecution failed to discharge their burden of showing beyond any reasonable doubt that he did do it".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, innocent.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, not guilty. L2read

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If a jury finds you not guilty, you are innocent :marseyangel3: of the charges against you.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, you fricking r-slur, this is not a difficult concept. The jury acquits you or dismisses charges. It does not find you innocent. The charges are gone on a not guilty verdict, and that is all. At no point are you said to be innocent of the charges. The state failed to prove them, you weren't found innocent

:marseyreading::marseygigaretard:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If the state :marseycoonass: has not sufficient evidence to convict, then by that definition :marseyremastered: you are innocent. That's why it is the 'Presumption of Innocence' not the 'presumption that you will be acquitted because the jury won't find you guilty :marseyjudge: beyond :marseynietzscheretard: a reasonable doubt'

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>then by that definition you are innocent.

Wrong

>That's why it is the (r-slurred explanation)

Wrong

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://media.giphy.com/media/kRXnZwKrPTwVq/giphy.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Keep yourself extra safe

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're technically right. It's similar to testing a hypothesis. Your results either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. It "cannot" confirm the hypothesis; otherwise, we might quickly find ourselves in the realm of sophistry.

@decam, this dichotomy exists to prevent people from deceiving themselves. "A and not-A" exists, but "not-A" can be more than one thing (if that helps).

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meaning 'innocent' in every way that matters.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Innocent until proven guilty is such an outdated concept, haven't you heard of #BelieveWomen?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Funny how feminists have now decided to twist the common definition of innocence the second it became inconvenient for them.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes but in this particular case, if you look at the evidence, it’s obvious he didn’t r*pe anyone.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.