Probable cause is not proof of a crime. It's a complete contradiction to claim to agree with innocent until proven guilty while simultaneously thinking that you can make absolute statements of guilt from behind a computer screen with no trial needed.
And just ask the patriots who were arrested for peacefully protesting on January 6th about "proof" being needed for an arrest. The ones who are being denied a speedy trial and being held in cells for 23 hours a day when they haven't even been convicted of a crime or allowed to argue their case. I guess they were "obviously guilty" too and deserve it?
"Trump's obviously guilty of colluding with Russia so why don't we just make Hillary president?"
Same logic.
Nothing like that. Trump was obviously innocent. This man is obviously guilty. Huge difference between the two.
Impeccable analysis.
"Obviously" is only in the eyes of the (potentially corrupt) government doing the enforcing.
Conviction is at least harder to corrupt. We know the russiagate was corruption. We know this will probably lead to conviction.
We also know they would use "obviously" as a weapon with fake evidence
Says the guy who doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. One of the big pillars of a free and fair society.
Probable cause is not proof of a crime. It's a complete contradiction to claim to agree with innocent until proven guilty while simultaneously thinking that you can make absolute statements of guilt from behind a computer screen with no trial needed.
And just ask the patriots who were arrested for peacefully protesting on January 6th about "proof" being needed for an arrest. The ones who are being denied a speedy trial and being held in cells for 23 hours a day when they haven't even been convicted of a crime or allowed to argue their case. I guess they were "obviously guilty" too and deserve it?