I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.

You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.

When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.

So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.