Breaking: North Charleston cop about to go free!!!

[JakeStarkey]

You choose to not pay attention to what I said.
Thus, your response are necessarily nonsensical.

Not at all, unless yours in the CCW thread, where you follow the process you condmen, are nonsensical.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?

Who said I did?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

"Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".

Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt.

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

I don't see any "if" in there...

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?

How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who said I did?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt.

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

I don't see any "if" in there...

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see any "if" in there...

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.

Well, no shit.

What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.

The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let me try to give you an example. Are the following two statements the same?

If Trump takes a dump on the stage during the next debate, he'll probably lose the nomination.

vs.

Presuming that Trump takes a dump on stage during the next debate, he'll rightfully lose the election.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 is a confused, low IQ person.

He has trouble understanding, becomes easily confused, and when he does, he becomes mulishly stubborn.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So we may have another cop getting away with cold blooded murder. Isn't that always the case?

Looks more like a cop getting away with self defense. Lefties and race opportunists hate that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "If this is demonstratively plausible..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "If this is demonstratively plausible..."

Incorrect and mulishly stubborn.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.
Well, no shit.
What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "this is demonstratively plausible..."

You're the one making the argument - why would you base your argument on a presumption that you don't actually believe?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good to see you understand the obvious.

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "this is demonstratively plausible..."

You're the one making the argument - why would you base your argument on a presumption that you don't actually believe?

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you believe something that is not true, but "Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." is not me saying that -I- believe is demonstrably plausible.
Your inability - or refusal - to comprehend this is your problem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now, let's see if you understand the obvious. Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "this is demonstratively plausible..."

You're the one making the argument - why would you base your argument on a presumption that you don't actually believe?

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you believe something that is not true, but "Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." is not me saying that -I- believe is demonstrably plausible.
Your inability to comprehend this is your problem.

Your inability to coherently make your point (which, if I'm understanding it, is that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll get off) without revealing your bias in what you believe should "rightfully" happen is, as they say, not my problem.

 

[bucs90]

Slager's audio transmission said "He got my taser".

Scott took the taser. He was under arrest...just resisitng...and not cuffed. He had cocaine and alcohol in his system.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops CAN use deadly force if...during an arrest...they are threatened with a weapon. Graham v. Connor. Slager's academy...like most...teach 1 + 1 force. 1 over what the suspect has. Taser + 1 = gun.

He's going free folks. Go ahead and get some popcorn for the riot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. They are functionally the same.
The latter statement merely better explains the former for those who could not, or refused to, comprehend it.

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "this is demonstratively plausible..."

You're the one making the argument - why would you base your argument on a presumption that you don't actually believe?

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you believe something that is not true, but "Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." is not me saying that -I- believe is demonstrably plausible.
Your inability to comprehend this is your problem.

Your inability to coherently make your point (which, if I'm understanding it, is that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll get off) without revealing your bias in what you believe should "rightfully" happen is, as they say, not my problem.

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you chose to believe something that is not true - but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Slager's audio transmission said "He got my taser".

Scott took the taser. He was under arrest...just resisitng...and not cuffed. He had cocaine and alcohol in his system.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops CAN use deadly force if...during an arrest...they are threatened with a weapon. Graham v. Connor. Slager's academy...like most...teach 1 + 1 force. 1 over what the suspect has. Taser + 1 = gun.

He's going free folks. Go ahead and get some popcorn for the riot.

He radioed that Scott had "taken his taser" after Scott was already dead - right about the same time he placed the taser next to Scott's body.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They're not "functionally" the same.
The first statement is a presumption of yours, the second is a conditional statement.

Incorrect.
"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." does not me that -I- presume they are correct for anything other than the sake of argument.
Just like "this is demonstratively plausible..."

You're the one making the argument - why would you base your argument on a presumption that you don't actually believe?

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you believe something that is not true, but "Presuming this is demonstratively plausible..." is not me saying that -I- believe is demonstrably plausible.
Your inability to comprehend this is your problem.

Your inability to coherently make your point (which, if I'm understanding it, is that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll get off) without revealing your bias in what you believe should "rightfully" happen is, as they say, not my problem.

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that you chose to believe something that is not true - but there's nothing I can do about it.

Another "meaningful response"?

No, you're the poopy-headed poopy head!