View Single Post
Old 06-13-2019, 03:35 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
I'm always a little surprised by the true believers on both sides of this particular tragedy. Believing any particular version of how the fight went down means disbelieving some sworn testimony at the trial. Obviously, someone is lying or mistaken. But in those circumstances, a reasonable person reserves more than a smidgen of doubt and humility about which witnesses, exactly, testified correctly. Fundamentally, there just wasn't much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.

So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head. You can call yourself a neutral judge of the evidence, but when you display that level of certainty about inherently uncertain facts, that's a tell. It's a tell that your view of the facts is being determined by your views, and not the other way round.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 06-13-2019 at 03:35 PM.