Originally Posted by
RhinoPherret
Not buying this guy’s lame excuse.
The immediate words and actions taken when the incident occurred by him, his further ramblings later after the incident, the canned responses by his attorney (his attorney obviously had nothing to work with to enforce this guy's innocent pleading). Couple this with his statement in court: "Whatever the sentence is, I will accept it". That is the standard statement to make in court (he was advised by his attorney to make it) when you know you are guilty and could go down for some serious time.
The canned responses by his attorney? Oh yes, let's definately use that to determine guilt. In fact, anyone who "lawyers up" is probably guilty, right?
Saying he will accept a sentence, after being told to say that, is also an indicator of guilt? Would it have helped "prove his innocence" (should that even be a thing anyway?) if he had said "nah, I don't accept the results of the court, so I'm just walking out"?
So someone accuses someone of something, we just better assume guilt and prosecute, convict and punish accordingly because hey, if they were innocent they wouldn't have been charged in the first place, right?