[Politcs] When your KID knows better than calling the police on someone simply because he's Black.

[Silvanus]

But how did he gain access to it? he wasn't a resident and his friend was coming from the outside, it's quite obvious he slipped through. That doesn't mean he should have any more access than anyone not authorised to enter the building who didn't already slip through.

Okay, but it also doesn't demonstrate wrongdoing. If I run into someone else on the stairs of my apartment block, they haven't proven they should be there either. Yet that's a daily occurrence.

The point I was making was that from the start, we're already past the question of whether or not you should let someone into a locked building. You shouldn't, technically, though many do. But that's not a relevant question, and is not the nature of the dispute on film. Cukor is not blocking entry, and Michel is not demanding entry. Cukor is demanding information from someone who already has entry, and wrongfully reporting criminality without evidence.

All this nonsense could have been avoided by answering one or two reasonable questions. He was not asked unreasonable things and he was in the wrong to begin with.

Any question regarding personal information, coming from someone with zero authority and zero right to know, is an unreasonable question.

I'm not going to tell a total stranger my name if they demand it, unless they have a right to know it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I personally stated that I see myself in Michel. Have you stated anything of the like? I'm attempting the communication. I'm putting myself out there. Will you?

Am I required to chose a side? If I'm neither of these people, should I be roleplaying? Is that important?

Have you stated your bias?

 

[Agema]

But how did he gain access to it? he wasn't a resident and his friend was coming from the outside, it's quite obvious he slipped through. That doesn't mean he should have any more access than anyone not authorised to enter the building who didn't already slip through.

No. Obsidian's post about tailgating being an established custom is a very important one: everyone does it, and everyone knows everyone does it. It might be on a very technical level wrong, but where someone has a fair reason to gain access, most simply will not perceive it to be wrong - and in this case, as the guy really did have a friend in the building, he will feel justified being in the building.

Being stopped and questioned can be taken as an implicit accusation of being up to no good. And if we were to take a step back, we'd all accept that we can get defensive and offended when people do that to us in all sorts of ways. We like to be assumed to be blameless and well-intentioned (especially when we actually are), and we don't like it when we're not assumed to be. Imagine those debates where men have got offended when women opine that any man is a potential rapist: plenty of men get uptight about the idea they might merely be assumed to be a risk. It's very much the same sort of thing. Certain people sensitised to the idea that others more frequently assume they are up to no good (as many black people will feel), it's even more likely to be interpreted negatively.

All this nonsense could have been avoided by answering one or two reasonable questions. He was not asked unreasonable things and he was in the wrong to begin with.

I would suggest it's not just about being asked "not unreasonable" things to do, but how those requests are put across. If I need a colleague to do some work then there are a lots of ways I can express that not unreasonable request, some of which may be aggravating and annoying for my colleague.

 

[tstorm823]

Imagine those debates where men have got offended when women opine that any man is a potential rapist: plenty of men get uptight about the idea they might merely be assumed to be a risk. It's very much the same sort of thing.

That's very different. If someone thinks I'm a potential rapist by virtue of being a man, that's irritating as a completely abstract judgment. It accomplishes nothing but shaming for shame's sake, and I'm not going to respond "yes, you're right, I'm sorry that I have a penis". If, however, I pick up a woman's drink by accident at a party and she's afraid I put something in it, that is a concrete fear with serious possible consequences. I'm not going to be indignant that she's afraid I'm trying to rape her, I'm going to apologize for frightening her and effectively ruining her drink. If I insist that it's fine and she should drink it anyway, I'm an awful person, even though I didn't spike it.

 

[Agema]

That's very different.

It's different in certain ways - such is necessarily the case with anaologies - but not in the way that matters to illustrate the point. Irrespective of what you personally feel, I've read plenty of those debates and I remember plenty of squeals of outrage from various participants which clearly express an objection relating to the above.

 

[tstorm823]

It's different in certain ways - such is necessarily the case with anaologies - but not in the way that matters to illustrate the point. Irrespective of what you personally feel, I've read plenty of those debates and I remember plenty of squeals of outrage from various participants which clearly express an objection relating to the above.

I gave you a better analogy for this situation. One where someone innocently does something that could be perceived as wrong and is accused of wrongdoing, likely in part because of a demographic the person happened to belong to. Let me lay this out side by side.

In this video, we have a person (Micheal) who did something that could perceived as a sign of wrongdoing (slipping in through a locked door before it closes) with no intention of doing something harmful or illegal. The effected witness (the dad) perceived a threat and confronted the perceived wrongdoer so as to avoid the possible harmful outcome (a burglary). The action (going through a door like that) is a common occurrence and likely harmless, but the person (the dad) wanted to be safe regardless.

In my analogy, we have a person (I chose me) who did something that could be perceived as a sign of wrongdoing (touching a woman's drink) with no intention of doing something harmful or illegal. The effected witness (the woman) perceived a threat and confronted the perceived wrongdoer so as to avoid the possible harmful outcome (being drugged and assaulted). The action (mistaking one drink for another) is a common occurrence and likely harmless, but the person (the woman) wanted to be safe regardless.

Both the dad and the woman above are being perfectly reasonable about an event they might think is a sign of illicit activity. Both situations are resolved when the potential wrongdoer explains the situation. I don't want to be accused of being a rapist, I might be reasonably upset that someone would make that accusation, but my actions created that perception, and it's my responsibility to alleviate her fears. And if I refuse to do that, she's right to treat me as a rapist with everything that entails.

Micheal didn't want to be accused of being a thief breaking into the building, and he was reasonably upset at the accusation, but his actions created that perception, so it's his responsibility to alleviate those fears. And when he refused to do that, the dad was right to treat him as a burglar with everything that entails.

 

[Agema]

I gave you a better analogy for this situation.

No, you gave a different analogy to illustrate a different point. You are, to all intents and purposes, talking cross-purposes to me.

Micheal didn't want to be accused of being a thief breaking into the building, and he was reasonably upset at the accusation, but his actions created that perception, so it's his responsibility to alleviate those fears. And when he refused to do that, the dad was right to treat him as a burglar with everything that entails.

At an abstract ethical level, that's not an unreasonable framework. However, it makes me think of the sort of thing someone delivers in a theoretical seminar - the problem being is that when actually faced with a real-life situation, in the heat of the moment with the usual messiness of human interaction, it's vastly more complex and tricky to navigate. And that's my point.

Finally, if we're talking responsibility, the ultimate responsibility is to not let people enter restricted areas - I work in areas which have restricted entry, and the guidelines are absolutely clear: do not let unknown people through the doorway.

 

[generals3]

The guy was racist. Stop defending racists.

You have no evidence of that. On event is neither a pattern nor evidence he wouldn't have done the same if Michel had been white. It's all baseless assumptions you make due to your own biases.

No. Obsidian's post about tailgating being an established custom is a very important one: everyone does it, and everyone knows everyone does it. It might be on a very technical level wrong, but where someone has a fair reason to gain access, most simply will not perceive it to be wrong - and in this case, as the guy really did have a friend in the building, he will feel justified being in the building.

Being stopped and questioned can be taken as an implicit accusation of being up to no good. And if we were to take a step back, we'd all accept that we can get defensive and offended when people do that to us in all sorts of ways. We like to be assumed to be blameless and well-intentioned (especially when we actually are), and we don't like it when we're not assumed to be. Imagine those debates where men have got offended when women opine that any man is a potential rapist: plenty of men get uptight about the idea they might merely be assumed to be a risk. It's very much the same sort of thing. Certain people sensitised to the idea that others more frequently assume they are up to no good (as many black people will feel), it's even more likely to be interpreted negatively.

You're correct we can get defensive when we feel assumed to no good. And the fact it is a custom to not adress tailgaiters on their behavior may induce that feeling. BUT, taking a step back after the encounter should cool things off and prevent the posting of this video. But the problem is not really Michel's behavior, but the reaction to the video. All these people quick to call Cukor all kinds of things are. They can't use the excuse of having been offended and reacting "on the heat of the moment". These are outsiders calmly watching a video from their chair and making absurd character judgements based on that one video alone.

I would suggest it's not just about being asked "not unreasonable" things to do, but how those requests are put across. If I need a colleague to do some work then there are a lots of ways I can express that not unreasonable request, some of which may be aggravating and annoying for my colleague.

I don't feel like the tone of Cukor was unappropriate in the beginning. But that may be me and because i'm not American.

 

[generals3]

Two things.

The guy is using a method that literally millions of Americans without malice use every day. It's a Mores at this point. No one bats an eye when a woman tailgates. Why? Because we're programmed to feel churlish for not holding the door open for her proper. She's a lady after all.

It feels very familiar that the lines of the Mores are always tested with certain individuals of this population. That's what drives people up the wall.

True, judging one person on one instance without nothing at all about him is acting exactly the way he's accused of, no? Neither Michel nor the viewers of the video know what Michel is like in his every day life and what he has lived through which could reasonably explain his abnormally cautious behavior.

And two, it doesn't matter how polite your questions are. I can politely refuse. I can rudely refuse. But no matter how pretty you want to make Cukor's actions, Michel is under no duty to respond.

You're correct, which is why Cukor decided to call the cops. He did not act as a vigilante as once he realised the issue could not be resolved calmly and as adults. Which is his right.

Really look at the pains you take to color how Cukor is speaking. It paints a great picture, but it's not actually important to this case. If Cukor was rude and confrontational, would that suddenly make Michel's right not to answer more understandable? Should I get every girl's number I ask for because I'm being so very charming?

Off course it would make it more understandible. Most humans are inclined to cooperate or respond out of their free will when asked nicely.

Because I just rewatched the video. Again. It's on the first post. Michel spoke in a tone matching Cukor's. He calmly spoke as well and suggested that it could just be over if Cukor just walked away. He used no curses until his friend came around, and that was after being called a Trespasser and enduring his smirk.

He didn't use any curses sure, but refusing to cooperate and telling someone he should "just walk away" while being in the wrong and while the situation is clearly caused by safety concerns is either adversarial or just stupid. What is the one command that is associated all the time with people up to no good wanting others to leave the area and pretend nothing is going on? "Just walk away". If there is one answer NOT to give in such situations it's that one. You're basically begging for cops to be called.

I can easily say Cukor was being a dick. Does that change is ability to ask questions? No. But even if he was a saint in asking questions, that still doesn't give Michel any more reason to answer his questions.

I'm not questioning anyone's ability to do anything in that situation. I'm merely arguing the situation doesn't deserve the backlash it created towards Cukor.

That's the difference. I cringe at Michel cursing in front of the kid. No matter how mad you are, that lowers my opinion of you if you do something like that and don't apologize. Even if I get that anger, being in a similar situation all of the time and having the world always expect you to handle it with niceness and calm tones, no matter what it could actually mean for you. I think they are both dicks.

But I recognize that Cukor still has the ability to ask questions. His ability does not change or hinge on my personal opinion of him. And Michel still has the ability to deny answering question. Same goes. I think it would be absurd for Michel to call up the cops because someone is insisting on making him answer his questions. I equally think it's absurd that Cukor would call the cops to make someone answer his questions... oh, and while already tainting the police's perception by labeling him doing an illegal act.

And actually, this is what it comes down to. Like I said before, Michel calmly asked Cukor to disengage. Cukor did not. Cukor calmly asked Cukor to ring Michel's friend. Michel said he didn't have to do that. Both sides asked reasonable things, both sides did not comply.

And we will all read our personal bias into this situation. Before you accuse, admit your own.

I don't think Cukor called the cops because Michel refused to answer his questions. He did so because he tailgaited, staid in the building and refused to answer the questions. There is a nuance. If he had called the cops just because Michel refused to answer questions than his reaction would have clearly been over the top.

 

[Saelune]

The guy was racist. Stop defending racists.

You have no evidence of that. On event is neither a pattern nor evidence he wouldn't have done the same if Michel had been white. It's all baseless assumptions you make due to your own biases.

I have plenty of evidence.

1. Racism is rampant.

2. This shit KEEPS HAPPENING!

I dont need to touch every open flame to know its hot.


Lets not pretend you arent jumping to a ton of conclusiosn yourself.

If you're going to jump to the assumption that the caller is innocent, and thus the black guy is guilty, I am going to take the opposite and more likely true stance of defending the guy who was minding his own business.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

True, judging one person on one instance without nothing at all about him is acting exactly the way he's accused of, no? Neither Michel nor the viewers of the video know what Michel is like in his every day life and what he has lived through which could reasonably explain his abnormally cautious behavior.

Which is literally the point. I'm assuming that second Michel that's bolded was suppposed to be Cukor, so I'm going off of that.

Likewise Cukor did not know what happened to Michel in his every day life that made him cautious enough to pull out the camera to have it documented for his own safety. I don't see how Cukor's fears trumps Michel's apparent fears, but the prevailing argument seems to be that Cukor's fears are deserving of sating because Michel is the scary 'other' while Michel's fears do not enter into it, and it would be all be solved if Michel sated Cukor's fears while giving no thought to his own.

But Cukor is Michel's other as well. Cukor is deserving as much fear as Michel is.

You're correct, which is why Cukor decided to call the cops. He did not act as a vigilante as once he realised the issue could not be resolved calmly and as adults. Which is his right.

A situation completely manufactured, prolonged, and escalated by Cukor. That's a nifty ability to have. I caused a situation, and I get to dictate how it goes. That seems to limit others' rights when the game is played that way.

He didn't use any curses sure, but refusing to cooperate and telling someone he should "just walk away" while being in the wrong and while the situation is clearly caused by safety concerns is either adversarial or just stupid. What is the one command that is associated all the time with people up to no good wanting others to leave the area and pretend nothing is going on? "Just walk away". If there is one answer NOT to give in such situations it's that one. You're basically begging for cops to be called.

How many people are actually apart of this situation? Cukor, Cukor's son, Michel... and Michel's disabled friend Cathy.

I know this is not what anyone really wants to do in this situation, but on Michel side, not only is he's tired of having special treatment placed his way (as he stated in the video), but this man is demanding personal information of another person who is at a disadvantage.

I personally don't like giving information out about myself, but I'm damn sure more willing to do that than people I don't know who can't handle themselves as well as I can.

Refusing to cooperate comes in many forms. Not just malicious. The police are not used as blunt instrutments to pry information you don't want to give out. And you can't invent crimes that someone might have done

People really seem to gloss over that part of the narrative. That to assuage Cukor's need, Michel would willingly have to give up information for someone who lived in the building and he has no way of knowing that Cukor is a man to be trusted.

In fact, according to some articles, Cathy isn't even her real name. Michel was thinking so far ahead that he couldn't trust Cukor that he instantly addressed her with another name so Cukor wouldn't have that.

We don't think about how Cukor was being aggressive, searching for someone's information. We don't think about how Michel indeed doesn't live there and is actually in the right for not giving out someone's private details... No, Michel should have just complied and everything would have been alright.

Hmm... that sentiment sounds familiar some how [https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/police-confrontations-why-give-them-a-reason/]...

I'm not questioning anyone's ability to do anything in that situation. I'm merely arguing the situation doesn't deserve the backlash it created towards Cukor.

Neither did one man doing something that again, millions of people do. Yet Cukor took it upon himself to go to the next level. When you go to the next level (taking it from personal to outside influencers), do not be surprised if the other party does so in kind.

And more importantly, don't ask someone to judge you by what's possibly in your heart and that you're a good person when you could not do the same for another person who didn't do what you wanted so you called the cops on them.

I don't think Cukor called the cops because Michel refused to answer his questions. He did so because he tailgaited, staid in the building and refused to answer the questions. There is a nuance. If he had called the cops just because Michel refused to answer questions than his reaction would have clearly been over the top.

Technically, the incident before Cukor called the police was Michel refused to call his friend (I tihnk Cathy) and then Cukor took his refusal to call the cops.

But here's the issue.

Can you understand why minorities are tired of other people perpetually telling those minorities to give white people who do this, who call cops for really nothing situations that millions of other people do a day without issue, to have understanding and give those white people the benefit of the doubt?

It's almost as if those very same white people we're supposed to have infinite patience for... actually gave the same benefit of the doubt... these things wouldn't happen.

And people are tired of that fact.

 

[generals3]

Which is literally the point. I'm assuming that second Michel that's bolded was suppposed to be Cukor, so I'm going off of that.

Likewise Cukor did not know what happened to Michel in his every day life that made him cautious enough to pull out the camera to have it documented for his own safety. I don't see how Cukor's fears trumps Michel's apparent fears, but the prevailing argument seems to be that Cukor's fears are deserving of sating because Michel is the scary 'other' while Michel's fears do not enter into it, and it would be all be solved if Michel sated Cukor's fears while giving no thought to his own.

But Cukor is Michel's other as well. Cukor is deserving as much fear as Michel is.

Yeah I meant Cukor, sorry about that.

The reason why i'm mostly looking at it from Cukor's perspective because he is the person being shamed and accused of all sorts of things. Michel doesn't need any more empathy, he's already portrayed as the hero who stood up to the evil racist white ****.

And Michel, in my opinion, lost all privilege for sympathy when he decided to post the video to appeal to the regressive far left hate brigade on the internet. That's an action he made ex-post, after he had time to sit down and think about the situation and realise there may be more to it than what he thinks.

A situation completely manufactured, prolonged, and escalated by Cukor. That's a nifty ability to have. I caused a situation, and I get to dictate how it goes. That seems to limit others' rights when the game is played that way.

Yes & no. He did enter a building he shouldn't have had access to. So he started the situation. He than refused to answer reasonable questions so he participated to polonging the situation. The escalation was a necessity due to a total lack of cooperation. How many people have said here that Cukor can't impose anything on Michel? Well, that's exactly why calling the cops was the inevitable outcome of the situation which had evolved to an impasse with both refusing to comply to the other's request.

How many people are actually apart of this situation? Cukor, Cukor's son, Michel... and Michel's disabled friend Cathy.

I know this is not what anyone really wants to do in this situation, but on Michel side, not only is he's tired of having special treatment placed his way (as he stated in the video), but this man is demanding personal information of another person who is at a disadvantage.

I personally don't like giving information out about myself, but I'm damn sure more willing to do that than people I don't know who can't handle themselves as well as I can.

Refusing to cooperate comes in many forms. Not just malicious. The police are not used as blunt instrutments to pry information you don't want to give out. And you can't invent crimes that someone might have done

People really seem to gloss over that part of the narrative. That to assuage Cukor's need, Michel would willingly have to give up information for someone who lived in the building and he has no way of knowing that Cukor is a man to be trusted.

The information he was going to give up is information he would have given up to anyone close to him if he had to call her up had no one opened the door him or information he ended up giving in the end anyway (her name). Had Cukor started asking for all sorts of information like Michel's full name, place of living and what not. Than sure I can understand someone not wanting to give that.

In fact, according to some articles, Cathy isn't even her real name. Michel was thinking so far ahead that he couldn't trust Cukor that he instantly addressed her with another name so Cukor wouldn't have that.

Is that true? I have seen an article state Michel was outside on the sidewalk ...

We don't think about how Cukor was being aggressive, searching for someone's information. We don't think about how Michel indeed doesn't live there and is actually in the right for not giving out someone's private details... No, Michel should have just complied and everything would have been alright.

He doesn't seem that "aggressive" to me (neither does Michel by the way). And the information he would have given away is the same as he would have to anyone who would have seen him buzz her appartment in the building. He wasn't asked a full bio...

Neither did one man doing something that again, millions of people do. Yet Cukor took it upon himself to go to the next level. When you go to the next level (taking it from personal to outside influencers), do not be surprised if the other party does so in kind.

And more importantly, don't ask someone to judge you by what's possibly in your heart and that you're a good person when you could not do the same for another person who didn't do what you wanted so you called the cops on them.

Millions of people cross the streets when the lights are red because they believe it's safe when they see no cars coming from either side. Some however prefer to avoid doing that because "they never know". The latter is clearly the safer and more correct thing to do. In this case it's the same, while most people allow tailgaiting ideally we shouldn't, we can't blame someone for breaking customs by doing what should be done. If there were evidence he broke customs due to nefarious motives than sure, the whole situation this video created would be justified, but that evidence doesn't exist. It's purely in the minds of people quick to judge white-non white interactions.

Technically, the incident before Cukor called the police was Michel refused to call his friend (I tihnk Cathy) and then Cukor took his refusal to call the cops.

But here's the issue.

Can you understand why minorities are tired of other people perpetually telling those minorities to give white people who do this, who call cops for really nothing situations that millions of other people do a day without issue, to have understanding and give those white people the benefit of the doubt?

It's almost as if those very same white people we're supposed to have infinite patience for... actually gave the same benefit of the doubt... these things wouldn't happen.

And people are tired of that fact.

I can understand that. But in this instance he was initially in the wrong, custom or no custom. And while the fact tailgaiting is done by most may make his initial reaction understandible as his initial gut feeling may have told him to take offense this doesn't excuse what he has done afterwards: use the internet to shame someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong and who's actions will only be judged based on his skin color and the skin color of Michel.

 

[generals3]

1. Racism is rampant.

2. This shit KEEPS HAPPENING!

I dont need to touch every open flame to know its hot.


Lets not pretend you arent jumping to a ton of conclusiosn yourself.

If you're going to jump to the assumption that the caller is innocent, and thus the black guy is guilty, I am going to take the opposite and more likely true stance of defending the guy who was minding his own business.

Guilty of what? What do I consider Michel guilty of?
Not every situation or confrontation involves a guilty and innocent person. Both could be innocent or guilty.

And this is not a flaming pot. It's just a pot, one that could have been heated or not. And when you just see a pot you won't state with such certainty it's hot because you have seen plenty of hot pots in your life. It's just a pot.

 

[CaitSeith]

someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong

Falsely accusing someone with the police IS objectively wrong.

 

[Saelune]

1. Racism is rampant.

2. This shit KEEPS HAPPENING!

I dont need to touch every open flame to know its hot.


Lets not pretend you arent jumping to a ton of conclusiosn yourself.

If you're going to jump to the assumption that the caller is innocent, and thus the black guy is guilty, I am going to take the opposite and more likely true stance of defending the guy who was minding his own business.

Guilty of what? What do I consider Michel guilty of?
Not every situation or confrontation involves a guilty and innocent person. Both could be innocent or guilty.

And this is not a flaming pot. It's just a pot, one that could have been heated or not. And when you just see a pot you won't state with such certainty it's hot because you have seen plenty of hot pots in your life. It's just a pot.

Nah, you assume the racist guy is justified. therefor you have decided who is innocent and who is guilty. You assume it was totally justified for this racist asshole to take it upon himself to vet this guy. It wasn't, and he is being racist, and you're defending that.

 

[generals3]

Nah, you assume the racist guy is justified. therefor you have decided who is innocent and who is guilty. You assume it was totally justified for this racist asshole to take it upon himself to vet this guy. It wasn't, and he is being racist, and you're defending that.

You still did not provide any evidence he's racist whatsoever except "racism is rampant" which is exactly the kind of arguments you can expect from racists. "This is rampant among group X/Y therefor my prejudiced judgement is totally ok".

 

[Saelune]

Nah, you assume the racist guy is justified. therefor you have decided who is innocent and who is guilty. You assume it was totally justified for this racist asshole to take it upon himself to vet this guy. It wasn't, and he is being racist, and you're defending that.

You still did not provide any evidence he's racist whatsoever except "racism is rampant" which is exactly the kind of arguments you can expect from racists. "This is rampant among group X/Y therefor my prejudiced judgement is totally ok".

Whats your evidence he isn't racist?

And no, calling out racism isn't racist, and you know that. Don't play this 'no you're racist' bullshit with me.

 

[generals3]

someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong

Falsely accusing someone with the police IS objectively wrong.

What did he accuse him of? trespassing? Well he didn't have access to the building yet let himself in, he refused to provide any information (at all) that would suggest he is indeed invited and someone would have opened the door for him had he not tailgated. So as far as the evidence goes: he's a tresspasser. Had he not entered the building or had the door been opened by the person inviting him than the accusation would have been entirely false. Unfortunately for Michel at that point in time he was a trespasser.

 

[generals3]

Nah, you assume the racist guy is justified. therefor you have decided who is innocent and who is guilty. You assume it was totally justified for this racist asshole to take it upon himself to vet this guy. It wasn't, and he is being racist, and you're defending that.

You still did not provide any evidence he's racist whatsoever except "racism is rampant" which is exactly the kind of arguments you can expect from racists. "This is rampant among group X/Y therefor my prejudiced judgement is totally ok".

Whats your evidence he isn't racist?

And no, calling out racism isn't racist, and you know that. Don't play this 'no you're racist' bullshit with me.

Calling out racism can be racism if it's based on racist prejudices...
I don't need to provide evidence that someone is innocent. What's your evidence you're not a murderer?

 

[Saelune]

I don't need to provide evidence that someone is innocent.

I rest my case.