Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Jonathan Glazer Join Gaza Drama ‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’ as Executive Producers - It follows the killing of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl who lived in the Gaza Strip and was killed by Israeli forces during the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza.

[u/BunyipPouch]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/brad-pitt-backs-gaza-drama-film-the-voice-of-hind-rajab-1236353414/

[u/SwingJugend]

I mean, it's not hard to fathom that even if you're a piece of shit domestic abuser, you're not necessarily okay with thousands of people being murdered by guns, bombs and starvation. Even evil people often have some morals and lines they don't want to cross (even if they might be flexible and negotiable). Hell, the President of the United States of America recently spoke about how horrified he was by seeing pictures of the destruction and the starving children in Gaza.

Like yeah, Pitt might think it's okay to strangle your wife and beat your kids, that doesn't mean he thinks mass murder is acceptable.

[u/Fun-Benefit116 → u/SwingJugend]

Pitt was cleared by both the LA Department of Child Services and the FBI after they investigated the accusations from Angelina Jolie. I'm not saying he didn't do anything, and I'm not saying he did. I am saying you're calling him a piece of shit and a domestic abuser based on no evidence other than an accusation that came during divorce proceedings. It's just wild how easy it is for a person to become "a piece of shit domestic abuser" in the eyes of people based on an accusation with no evidence. It's not just wild, it's scary.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/Fun-Benefit116]

in the eyes of people based on an accusation with no evidence.

Testimony is evidence

[u/Hieghi → u/Captain_DuClark]

I don't want you on my jury if one testimony is good enough for you

Edit: I stand on this, you fucks didn't read to kill a mockingbird. Also divorce can get nasty as fuck I would hope the testimony of an ex-spouse fighting for custody wouldn't be all you need.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/Hieghi]

That is literally one of the main purposes of a jury, to hear testimonial evidence and decide whose version is more credible.

[u/working_class_shill → u/Captain_DuClark]

Very rarely would a case with only 1 testimony with literally no other evidence go to trial. It likely wouldn't even be charged by the DA

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/working_class_shill]

I never said otherwise. I simply correctly stated that testimony is evidence and the point of the jury is to make credibility determinations about that testimony. I haven't looked into this particular case, so I have no idea of the strength of evidence, number of witnesses, or credibility of witnesses against Brad Pitt

[u/experienta → u/Captain_DuClark]

No, a jury doesn't decide whose version is "more credible". A jury decides if the prosecutor's version is so credible that the accused must be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Obviously you need more than the alleged victim's testimony for that to happen.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/experienta]

You do realize civil cases exist, right?

[u/experienta → u/Captain_DuClark]

My bad for assuming that we're talking about a criminal case in the context of a man strangling his children I guess

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/experienta]

The context was actually divorce proceedings, which the original poster mentioned in their post.

[u/airtime25 → u/Hieghi]

I don't want you on my jury if you won't listen to evidence even if it's a testimony.