[throw_this_away]

Because...innocent until proven guilty. But according to the parent comment, guilty until proven innocent. The author of the story doesn't need to prove anything to you. His experience and the fact that he was ultimately released from prison should be enough.

[golergka]

> But according to the parent comment, guilty until proven innocent

Where did I state something even remotely close to this?

[throw_this_away]

You said "Everybody here in the comments seem to take the story on face value.".

You're implying that we shouldn't take the story at face value OR that the author is being dishonest about his experience.

Then you say, "Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it. Am I missing something here?"

A clear call for proof.

[golergka]

You are correct, this is call for proof.

It seems that in your worldview, one either believes the author, or calls him a liar. But in real life, the third option is actually more optimal in majority of cases. This third option is doubt.

[throw_this_away]

By definition, if you doubt someone's story, then you don't believe them. It's fairly simple, but if you would prefer to pretend that you didn't say what you said, that's certainly your right.

[benbenolson]

Sometimes I really wonder about how some commenters on Hacker News extrapolate things like this. My guess is that someone feels badly for the wrongly accused (which is quite understandable), and wants to do anything in his/her power to defend him, like bringing down comments like yours that may reveal any wrongdoing or mistakes on the website creator's part.

[throw_this_away]

Why do I need to defend the author? He hasn't done anything that needs defending...

I'm merely pointing out that the original comment is automatically assuming that the author's story is untrue. And that the comment makes a clear call for more proof.

[golergka]

> I'm merely pointing out that the original comment is automatically assuming that the author's story is untrue. And that the comment makes a clear call for more proof.

Of course I do, because this is the default attitude one should have when approaching such stories on the internet.

This whole story could be complete fiction that never took place from the beginning to the end, unless you actually make an effort to locate and probably contact (since I don't think they would bother to publish any involved materials) the officials and departments involved. Have you?

This web-page is literally the only source we have. How the hell are we supposed to trust it by default?