Sure, that's why you left out the truth from your first several comments. Instead of presenting it for people who are unaware. Because you care so much about the truth. Makes perfect sense.

I'm also not the one who started with innocent until proven guilty, that was another person (as well as a couple of others who agreed) who also thought you were full of shit, had no sauce, and were advocating punishment for people with no proof or trial conducted. (Where is the sauce by the way? All I could find on him "admitting it" was some random news article saying he was recorded admitting it. They didn't actually have the recording though.)

You also don't know how getting arrested works it seems since there are dozens of patriots being held against their will right now, with no speedy trial, no visitation, and kept in solitary for 23 hours a day for simply being in D.C. on the 6th. How's that probable cause going for you? And again, probable cause isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed (plenty of court cases where the verdict is "not guilty". Hmm... how did that happen? I thought the cops had the evidence when they arrested people?). If it was the police would take you straight to prison, with no courtroom involved. There are also the cases where someone is pressured into admitting to something they didn't do (I don't think he's doing this) or are just flat out saying they did something they actually didn't. Lies can go anywhere and be anything so who knows. Now, again, that's not to say this guy is doing that. He is very, very likely telling the truth when he says he did it (If he said he did it, still pending sauce on that) though it's technically possible he lied. But the point is that it's much more complicated than, and there is no, "he's obviously guilty" in virtually any situation and you nor I really have any fucking clue what happened based on looking at pixels from behind our computer or phone screens (Unless the pixels are a video or photograph of it happening, which they aren't). All of this is why the legal system exists. To figure these complex situations out. If people could be "obviously guilty" there'd be no reason for certain people to be allowed a court trial. "He admitted it to the cops? Send him right off to prison with no trial then. What? He had a gun to his head when he made the recording because someone wanted to frame him to take eyes away from their own crimes? No no no, we don't want to hear that, he's already in prison and the police said he did it and showed the evidence, case closed." (This is another example, I don't think that this was the situation either)

And what you still don't realize is that this specific situation with the guy that this post is about is completely irrelevant. All your premises are complete bullshit so it doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not. That isn't, and never was, the point that the original guy and I were making in response to your top-level comment. (which again we were making to what you actually typed, not all the shit you left out of the comment that you then assumed we knew despite you not mentioning it)

And you continue to show that you fundamentally don't give a flying shit about innocent until proven guilty. You know better and we should just punish these people with no trial and no defense on their part (which, yes, they are still entitled to even if they admitted out of court that they did it (still waiting for the sauce on that)).

P.S. I'm surprised it took you this long to hit me with the "pedo defender REEEEEE" line. Also love the part where you make fun of the innocent until proven guilty comments, further digging that hole showing you give no shits about the concept. And I'm still not completely convinced you knew he admitted it when you made your first comment and didn't just add that after to make your original comments sound more reasonable.