-->
@n8nrgim
Uncalled for --unnecessary-- violence is dumb.
Health insurance company ceo assassinated in Manhattan
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@WyIted
If the evidence shows the shooter is guilty as charged I would vote guilty
-->
@Double_R
If the evidence shows the shooter is guilty as charged I would vote guilty
On what grounds could the shooter be found not guilty ?
-->
@Double_R
If the evidence shows the shooter is guilty as charged I would vote guilty
WTF?
Are you a neocon or neoliberal? I thought you were worthy of being considered a human!!!
-->
@WyIted
If the evidence shows the shooter is guilty as charged I would vote guiltyWTF?Are you a neocon or neoliberal? I thought you were worthy of being considered a human!!!
You always rush to judgement.
-->
@WyIted
So you like psychedelic lights with music.
-->
@Shila
On what grounds could the shooter be found not guilty ?
On the grounds that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual sitting in the defendants chair is guilty of killing the victim.
I haven't had time to read this thread, is there something I'm missing here? Why are you hoss asking me these questions?
-->
@Double_R
On what grounds could the shooter be found not guilty ?On the grounds that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual sitting in the defendants chair is guilty of killing the victim.I haven't had time to read this thread, is there something I'm missing here? Why are you hoss asking me these questions?
The CEO is dead and the shooter shot him and was caught on video. Case closed.
-->
@Shila
Yes but the initial question was whether I would vote to convict, the follow up was under what circumstances would I not convict. My answers were straight forward and quite simple, I don't understand what the issue is.
You point out the fact that he's on video... Ok... They still have to prove that the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. In theory that should be easy, that doesn't mean it's ok to prejudge any criminal trial.
It's easy to sit here on debateart spouting whatever we think and feel, it's an entirely different thing when you're sitting in a jurors chair and another human beings life is in your hands (I would know). It's the latter situation I was asked about so that's what I addressed.
-->
@Double_R
Yes but the initial question was whether I would vote to convict, the follow up was under what circumstances would I not convict. My answers were straight forward and quite simple, I don't understand what the issue is.You point out the fact that he's on video... Ok... They still have to prove that the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. In theory that should be easy, that doesn't mean it's ok to prejudge any criminal trial.It's easy to sit here on debateart spouting whatever we think and feel, it's an entirely different thing when you're sitting in a jurors chair and another human beings life is in your hands (I would know). It's the latter situation I was asked about so that's what I addressed.
If there was no video to incriminate the shooter, your doubts could be justified. But videos are extremely reliable as evidence.
-->
@Shila
I never said I had doubts. I pointed out the fact that they still have to prove the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. That's not a controversial idea, it's common sense.
You seem to be concocting disagreement where none exists.
Woman arrested for saying delay, deny depose on a call with her insurance company. Lol
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-arrested-saying-delay-deny-224928848.html?guccounter=1
-->
@Double_R
I never said I had doubts. I pointed out the fact that they still have to prove the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. That's not a controversial idea, it's common sense.You seem to be concocting disagreement where none exists.
They already have matched his finger prints with those found on the site and the note in his possession gave insight to his intent.
-->
@Shila
Yes, that happened since my original answer was given.
There is a reason I answered the question in the most generic terms possible. I'm just not interested in this case, that should have been obvious.