Should we always believe women accusers?

[Natural Citizen]

No youre not. She is being forced to prove you actually did it to a jury of your peers according to the legal system in the US.

Okay. What happens if I plead da fif? Legally speaking.

 

[Asclepias]

Because way more men rape women than the other way around for starters.

That is a stupid reason.

Its only a stupid reason if youre a stupid person.

I think we know who the stupid person is!

We know for certain you are the stupid person.

See how stupid you are?

Yes I clearly see how stupid you are.

 

[Asclepias]

No youre not. She is being forced to prove you actually did it to a jury of your peers according to the legal system in the US.

Okay. What happens if I plead da fif? Legally speaking.

Then you deserve to go to prison if they find in your accusers favor.

 

[miketx]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Aren't we supposed to prove a crime occurred rather than your supposition that we have to prove it didn't?

How do you disprove a lie? What if you really are innocent but have no alibi because you were home alone at the time of the alleged crime?

DNA works wonders these days.

 

[Rocko]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

I didnt see the word guilty in my post. Where did you get it from?

 

[miketx]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

I didnt see the word guilty in my post. Where did you get it from?

Meaning of words. When you say you believe someone that means you think the other person is guilty. Now, troll.

 

[Meister]

Opie would have had the same issue if it wasn't for a crooked Holder and Lynch.

Did President Obama even have 1 person he nominated, appointed, or hired go to prison?

Thanks to Holder and Lynch.....didn't you understand my prior post?

Yeah I understood your retarded prior post. I simply asked if it happened.

Nothing retarded about it, only truth.

Prove its truth. I'll wait but I wont hold my breath.

When you have the DOJ's in Opie's back pocket quashing everything, it's hard to get to the facts.
So if you want to circle your wagon around that, it really tells to what lengths the progressives will go.
I'm guessing you left your integrity at the front door.

 

[jc456]

Did President Obama even have 1 person he nominated, appointed, or hired go to prison?

Thanks to Holder and Lynch.....didn't you understand my prior post?

Yeah I understood your retarded prior post. I simply asked if it happened.

Nothing retarded about it, only truth.

Prove its truth. I'll wait but I wont hold my breath.

When you have the DOJ's in Opie's back pocket quashing everything, it's hard to get to the facts.
So if you want to circle your wagon around that, it really tells to what lengths the progressives will go.
I'm guessing you left your integrity at the front door.

I doubt he ever had any to leave.

 

[Rocko]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

I didnt see the word guilty in my post. Where did you get it from?

If you always believe the women, then you believe another party is always guilty of wrongdoing. Are you for real?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Then you deserve to go to prison if they find in your accusers favor.

Precisely. Moral of the story is that what is Legal is very rarely Lawful. Now, that's a much deeper discussion. But I don't feel like having it. lol.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

I didnt see the word guilty in my post. Where did you get it from?

If you always believe the women, then you believe another party is always guilty of wrongdoing. Are you for real?

That makes sense only if you lack the mental ability to distinguish between belief and the facts.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Ha! Guilty until proven otherwise eh?

I didnt see the word guilty in my post. Where did you get it from?

Meaning of words. When you say you believe someone that means you think the other person is guilty. Now, troll.

No it doesnt. Only simpletons think your claim is true.

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

 

[Pogo]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Aren't we supposed to prove a crime occurred rather than your supposition that we have to prove it didn't?

How do you disprove a lie? What if you really are innocent but have no alibi because you were home alone at the time of the alleged crime?

You should make this point to Finger Boy over here.

 

[Meister]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

(That thread would be here)

 

[jc456]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

I expect evidence. again, as I stated in an earlier post, if you didn't report it, then I will never believe it happened.

 

[Asclepias]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

 

[jc456]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

did you read her letter? it's all over the map. I wouldn't ever believe it.