I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing your arguments against this case to the same arguments made about the McDonald's case. It's not about the cases themselves, but our ignorance of them.

Except that I'm not equally ignorant, given that we know the defenses argument, and it's ridiculous.

You've presented a single vague summary of the defense argument (and given the non-guilty verdict and the article's presentation, is probably biased as well, but I reserve judgment).

So it seems you really know very little given the evidence I've seen so far, and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.

>and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.

I'd appreciate that you not make accusations like this, and I think this violates HN conduct guidelines.

In any case. I've presented evidence that includes quotes from the testimony. You're argument rests on the jury having deliberated for 30 minutes. Juries are incredibly stupid. They can be misled, they can and do get things wrong, all the time.

My argument can be summed up as "the jury is wrong, here's why". Your counterargument is "the jury disagrees with you". And to that I'd say "duh, that's why I said they're wrong". Using the Jury's conclusion as a counterargument to the statement "The jury is incorrect" is not an argument.

Quoting the guidelines:

>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Your statements about "absurdity" and "arrogance" are unwarranted. And you're now also putting words in my mouth. I won't be responding further.

Yeah, which would be relevant if I hadn't literally had to repeat myself 5 times in this thread. "Unwarranted", these labels are not. Labeling the argument "absurd" and "arrogant" is pretty much all that's left to do at this point, so I'll just leave it at that.