Well I agree with you - which is precisely why we should have a functioning and fair system for adjudicating claims, establishing facts, and evaluating the merit of various arguments.

One can and perhaps should imagine a more collaborative model of justice, but our current model is adversarial and, arguably, gladiatorial. Both sides present the strongest possible version of their case - intentional misrepresentation by prioritizing favorable context/evidence and ignoring, minimizing, or calling into question damning context/evidence is by definition what each side is supposed to do. By aggressively pursuing each party's interests to the extreme, neither can say they didn't receive a robust and fair hearing of their position. In fact, they had the best possible representation of their position and very likely better than they could have formulated on their own. Then the jury or judge weighs the merits, truth, and context against each other and determines which side is more trustworthy/meritorious. That can include punishment for perjury if either party knowingly lied.

To pre-assert that some people are not allowed to make claims in their own defense is wildly out of line with any presumption of innocence until proven guilty and immediately likely to result in further abuse of the most marginalized.

Where's the lie? They said he's a vet and he's x age, therefore he can't be dangerous. The fact that that's a fucking ridiculous and obviously weak defense only means that it's that much easier to say "no, fuck you, that's dumb, to the wall"

People have the right to put forward their best defense, and in cases like this where their crime is completely indefensible, that doesn't help them

Yeah, good. Okay.

Post revolution I'd still appreciate formal mechanisms of adjudication and rather we not default to beating each other to death during disputes - but to each their own I guess.