• Rivalarrival
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Burden of proof applies to the legal system, sure…I am saying he would have to prove he was “convinced”…like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat. It is proving my thought process leading up to the event.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat.

        No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.

        Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That definately makes killing folks a whole lot easier, as long as I am the only witness. “I defended myself, prove otherwise…kthnxbai!”.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It is not supposed to be easy to convict someone. It is a very high bar for a reason.