Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

New Evidence in Trayvon case

sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no evidence, only here say that is all. There hasn't even been a trail. Anything you here is all BS until a trial has been conducted.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 5:41:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:46:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No evidence = no conviction.

That is correct. If no conclusive evidence is given at the trial, then a dissmisal is in order. Law 101. Here say talk outside of a court room is as worthless as two tits on a hog.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 6:25:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:41:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:46:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No evidence = no conviction.

That is correct. If no conclusive evidence is given at the trial, then a dissmisal is in order. Law 101. Here say talk outside of a court room is as worthless as two tits on a hog.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss what the outcome should be.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2012 8:10:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 6:25:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:41:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:46:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No evidence = no conviction.

That is correct. If no conclusive evidence is given at the trial, then a dissmisal is in order. Law 101. Here say talk outside of a court room is as worthless as two tits on a hog.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss what the outcome should be.

Um how can you discuss what the outcome should be when you weren't even there and don't even know what happened or what the REAL facts are. To do so is sheer and unadulterated ignorance of the highest order.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 10:08:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/2/2012 8:10:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/26/2012 6:25:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:41:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:46:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No evidence = no conviction.

That is correct. If no conclusive evidence is given at the trial, then a dissmisal is in order. Law 101. Here say talk outside of a court room is as worthless as two tits on a hog.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss what the outcome should be.

Um how can you discuss what the outcome should be when you weren't even there and don't even know what happened or what the REAL facts are. To do so is sheer and unadulterated ignorance of the highest order.

Discussing what has been reported as legitimate facts isn't ignorance, it's expressing your right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, what's the more ignorant, to discuss the situation to find the best solution, or to refuse to talk about a situation and stick to your beliefs regardless of other facts?
My legend begins in the 12th century
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 2:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 11:46:12 PM, Scorbie wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com...

New evidence..thoughts...debate?

I don't really see how it would overturn the case. Zimmerman is still wrong for following the kid, especially when the police told him not to. Martin saw Zimmerman following him, and felt threatened so he was justified in attacking first.
My legend begins in the 12th century