Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
I agree with the general tone of this post. I disagree with labeling though. We don't know if he's a scum-bag. He certainly LOOKS like a scum-bag in light of accusations and media portrayal and it feels like he could be one. But the general public doesn't know if he is or not. Therefore, to label him as a scum bag is presumptuous, libelous and unwarranted. Assume for a moment that he is 100% innocent (that is that all of the accusations against him are fabricated). Would anyone want to be in his place right now? Is Patrick Kane a scum-bag?
Regardless of what had really happened (and the judge pointed out this was impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt), we do know with 100% certainty (proven in court) that the two women have conspired to have him convicted and organized their efforts to do so using questionable (and illegal) means. This is in the age where anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Yet, nobody here seems satisfied that the justice had been served as it should have. The overwhelming general sentiment is that "the ba$tard had gotten away with murder!" We now have own Canadian OJ Simpson. Everyone still sincerely believes that he is guilty of the crime as accused even AFTER reading the very detailed and well-reasoned judgement. Even the lawyers here seem to support this sentiment. Where's the respect for law and due process? The amount of blood thirst is almost medieval.
|
Well, I agree. I just added the "Disclaimer" as any general approval for the decision is automatically seen as equivocal to Ghomeshi's purported habits.
That said, there is a lot of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that suggests to me he is a scum-bag. All warranted.