I never pretended it didn't exist, I just didn't know he admitted to it.

And never cared enough to do a simple web search before spending time arguing.

Glad I could educate you.

And never cared enough to do a simple web search before spending time arguing.

Glad I could educate you.

Oh, so I should do google searches on every controversial case just incase someone stupidly incriminated themselves?

If you knew about it earlier why didn't you just mention it in the beginning. I think you are just in it for the fight, as usual. You couldn't help but nitpick a hypothetical prosecution question. Usually you are quick to point out about how the government has to prove a person committed a crime but in this case you were so ready abandon the burden of proof on the government. It seems your political bias has thoroughly worked it's way into your ideas about justice.

Oh, so I should do google searches on every controversial case just incase someone stupidly incriminated themselves?

If you knew about it earlier why didn't you just mention it in the beginning. I think you are just in it for the fight, as usual. You couldn't help but nitpick a hypothetical prosecution question. Usually you are quick to point out about how the government has to prove a person committed a crime but in this case you were so ready abandon the burden of proof on the government. It seems your political bias has thoroughly worked it's way into your ideas about justice.

Not my job to do your research.  You began making the point about his defense strategy.  It's on you to provide some sort of proof.  Isn't that what you say to everyone all the time?

I gave you enough time to find it yourself, and enough chances to NOT paint yourself into a corner.

Don't blame me for your poor decisions.  Next time you feel like playing devil's advocate, Internet lawyer, or courtroom strategist, maybe you'll look up the specifics of the case in question first.         

Not my job to do your research.  You began making the point about his defense strategy.  It's on you to provide some sort of proof.  Isn't that what you say to everyone all the time?

I gave you enough time to find it yourself, and enough chances to NOT paint yourself into a corner.

Don't blame me for your poor decisions.  Next time you feel like playing devil's advocate, Internet lawyer, or courtroom strategist, maybe you'll look up the specifics of the case in question first.      

Wrong wrong wrong. Like I pointed out your bias is showing through, The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You can't throw that out just because bicep guy was some lefty idiot.

Wrong wrong wrong. Like I pointed out your bias is showing through, The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You can't throw that out just because bicep guy was some lefty idiot.

This is not a court of law, and I'm not the prosecution.

You made a legal argument from the defense point of view, and then continued posting over and over about "if just one juror has a reasonable doubt."

But, you failed to research the FACTS.  Your whole argumentative dissertation was just hypothetical bullshit.

If I WERE the prosecution, I would have buried your client with his own statements.   

This is not a court of law, and I'm not the prosecution.

You made a legal argument from the defense point of view, and then continued posting over and over about "if just one juror has a reasonable doubt."

But, you failed to research the FACTS.  Your whole argumentative dissertation was just hypothetical bullshit.

If I WERE the prosecution, I would have buried your client with his own statements.   

My points were all based in standards about burdens of proof.

You find some extra video where the guy incriminates himself? Congratulations, you made a much better case but still completely missed the point that its the job of the prosecution to prove he had a gun, not his job to prove he didn't. Try to stay focused please.

My points were all based in standards about burdens of proof.

You find some extra video where the guy incriminates himself? Congratulations, you made a much better case but still completely missed the point that its the job of the prosecution to prove he had a gun, not his job to prove he didn't. Try to stay focused please.

I never missed your point.

You missed the FACTS.

Your arguments concerning THIS CASE were proven wrong.

Go cry in a corner.      

I never missed your point.

You missed the FACTS.

Your arguments concerning THIS CASE were proven wrong.

Go cry in a corner.      

It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.

Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.

It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.

Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.

You never bothered to look at the facts.

Not my job to do your research.

Suck it!   

You never bothered to look at the facts.

Not my job to do your research.

When you are making the argument it is. Stop trying to weasel out of this, it is pretty sad.

When you are making the argument it is. Stop trying to weasel out of this, it is pretty sad.

Wait.  I told you you were wrong ... statement of fact, not an opinion.

YOU argued with ME. Based on your rules:  you made the argument -- you post the info.

Of course, that requires you to actually KNOW the info and not just pull arguments out of your ass.   

You're done here.  First you lose your argument, then you argue about HOW you lost wasn't right somehow.

Suck it.  I won.  This is now settled, since I know you have nothing new to offer.

 

It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.

Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.

You come out creating your own fake scenarios of "what if", not including any of the actual facts about the case.

Then you get mad at everyone for watching you weave this intricate web of make believe and not telling you to shut the fuck up, here's the actual facts you never bothered to include?

Ahahahahahha

Wait.  I told you you were wrong ... statement of fact, not an opinion.

YOU argued with ME. Based on your rules:  you made the argument -- you post the info.

Of course, that requires you to actually KNOW the info and not just pull arguments out of your ass.   

You're done here.  First you lose your argument, then you argue about HOW you lost wasn't right somehow.

Suck it.  I won.  This is now settled, since I know you have nothing new to offer.

 

Hahaha, now that was even a little humorous with all the argument skills of a 4 year old. Keep digging yourself deeper if you want.

Bottom line, don't complain when someone asks you to support your argument.  You were making the argument of the prosecution therefore it is your job to support it, not the defense's job to prove innocent.

You come out creating your own fake scenarios of "what if", not including any of the actual facts about the case.

Then you get mad at everyone for watching you weave this intricate web of make believe and not telling you to shut the fuck up, here's the actual facts you never bothered to include?

Ahahahahahha

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the debate but it wasn't a hypothetical what if. On page 1, changemyoil made a comment about prosecuting bicep guy for a weapons charge and my comment was pointing out a difficulty doing so. So no, it wasn't a hypothetical situation, the situation actually occurred. I didn't make up anything.

And I am not mad at all, I am only reminding flapp that the prosecution has to prove their case, not the other way around. That is a pretty basic tenant of our justice system.

Hahaha, now that was even a little humorous with all the argument skills of a 4 year old. Keep digging yourself deeper if you want.

Bottom line, don't complain when someone asks you to support your argument.  You were making the argument of the prosecution therefore it is your job to support it, not the defense's job to prove innocent.

Ever notice how every time you're proven wrong, you only attack the other person?

Talk about "humorous".   

You don't get to set the rules of forum discussions.  It's your job to know more about the topic than .... nothing.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the debate but it wasn't a hypothetical what if. On page 1, changemyoil made a comment about prosecuting bicep guy for a weapons charge and my comment was pointing out a difficulty doing so. So no, it wasn't a hypothetical situation, the situation actually occurred. I didn't make up anything.

And I am not mad at all, I am only reminding flapp that the prosecution has to prove their case, not the other way around. That is a pretty basic tenant of our justice system.

This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud.  Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there. 

So don't feel bad

This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud.  Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there. 

So don't feel bad

LOL!  Trying to gang up on ME?   

Better people than you and EEF have tried and failed.

Go crawl back in your hole, and take your off topic post with you, Troll boy.   

 

This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud.  Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there. 

So don't feel bad

What is your definition for "mass fraud"? 4,000 dead people voting? 2?  700,000 extra votes?

What is your definition for "mass fraud"? 4,000 dead people voting? 2?  700,000 extra votes?

Don't let him hijack this thread, too.  It's about a self-defense shooting, not the election.  He can't help himself, so it's up to us to stop enabling him.

Thanks!

 

Don't let him hijack this thread, too.  It's about a self-defense shooting, not the election.  He can't help himself, so it's up to us to stop enabling him.

Thanks!

 

My bad, I should have known better.