Just because you called my argument a strawman doesn't make it one. Since I see you're not willing to advocate for normal common law justice, I don't think we'll ever agree, and I'll put this argument to rest.
By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
>Just because you called my argument a strawman doesn't make it one.
No, of course not, the fact that you keep trying to derail the argument by mischaracterizing what the people you disagree with are saying makes it a straw man. No one here has rejected the common law convention or said there shouldn't be a trial. A sizable contingent of your ideological brethren have. You refuse to confront this, and that's your own cross to bear.
>By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
Not especially, the material question is whether it depicts the assailants performing the acts that resulted in the prisoner's injuries. Notably, you've stopped even trying to argue that point.
By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.