- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's weird, especially given all the other speculation you have engaged in.I would disagree with that, yes.
Oh well. :shrug:
That's weird, especially given all the other speculation you have engaged in.I would disagree with that, yes.
Your examples of sufficient evidence are debatable. Those examples, alone are sufficient, IMO.
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.And the grand Jury will decide that. If it merits a trial, there will be one. My main point is just because there is a trial does not mean the officer is guilty.
Well we will find out. Personally, I'll take the view of experts of law rather than some random internet poster that thinks he is a lawyer.
It's going to go to a grand jury and they will decide if there is sufficient evidence, not you and not me.
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.
No one should be subjected to a trial that does not have to be. Especially as the evidence already points to the shooting being justified.
That's weird, especially given all the other speculation you have engaged in.
Oh well. :shrug:
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.
No one should be subjected to a trial that does not have to be. Especially as the evidence already points to the shooting being justified.
No it really isn't.Exactly! Which is the purpose of a grand jury.
No it really isn't.
It is the purpose of the DA to determine such. Not push it off on a GJ.
No. I asked if you believed the Guard were already in place because they knew there was not going to be any charges.You asked if I agree that the state already knows the grand jury isn't going to indict. No, I don't bekieve they KNOW that.
No it isn't just an opinion.That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I reject that you are a law expert.
No it isn't just an opinion.
Our legal system is not there to charge innocent people. That is not opinion.
The evidence in this case shows the shooting was justified. There is no reason to charge him or even present the evidence to a GJ.
We already know what it shows.
:dohIt is YOUR opinion there isn't enough evidence.
There purpose is not to bring charges on innocent people, or to make a showing.What's the grand jury for, then?
:doh
That is an opinion based on fact.
There is no credible witness for that side of the story. The stories sound contrived and have already been proven to be false in part.
Like I said, the evidence is weighed.
So all you are doing is talking nonsense.
Which is why you are trying to cast aspersion instead of debating the evidence.
No that isn't true.If what you say is fact it wouldn't be going to a grand jury. Sorry, your comments are nothing but OPINION.
Your "legal expertise" is rejected. If there wasn't evidence to be looked at a Grand Jury wouldn't happen.
No that isn't true.
If it is going to a GJ as reported, it is for appeasement purposes.
WHich is not what the GJ was designed for.
And again wrong.Yet again, more of your opinion. It is your opinion that is the reason.
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.When will you realize the difference between a fact and opinion?
And again wrong.
You deflecting from discussing the evidence speaks volumes.
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.No it is nothing but your opinion I'm wrong and one that I reject. Nothing of fact has been spoken by you.
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.
And again you are wrong.Just more opinions from you. Figures you still don't know the difference between fact and opinion. What an ego you have.
And again you are wrong.
Have you discussed the evidence here yet? Nope. You were given to opportunity to do so instead of engaging in deflection. Yet you still haven't.
That is fact. Not opinion.
Do try to learn the difference.