Jordan's logic is flawed on so many different levels. I'm not going to go into it, I'll let his professor explain it to him. He is now arguing for the sake of arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter
Jordan23, none of the folks on this forum are either the defense attorneys or prosecuting attorneys associated with the upcoming trial.
Until the trial is concluded, only the attorneys and law enforcement are going to be privy to ALL of the evidence. Once the trial is under way, the evidence will be freely available for everyone to view and pour over once it becomes public record.
Until such time that it is public record, all anyone can do is speculate.
While I agree that innocence until proven guilty is a staple of the American justice system, that doesn't mean we (the folks completely outside of this specific trial) are all required to refrain from opinion until the trial is complete.
I am not the justice system, and as such, I am not required to show you squat. Everything posted here is an opinion. If you want us to prove you wrong, you're barking up the wrong tree. We don't have to prove anything to you. If you want to believe he's innocent until you see evidence to the contrary, then you are free and welcome to hold that stance.
|
Thanks for saving me some typing
As for the previous discussions; I've really enjoyed all the sharing of different views. And at least the topic I wanted to bring to point, was discussed at length (so people are thinking of it).
Oh one more thing before I go and just monitor this thread for any other interesting concepts that may be brought up. For those that want to continue this foray into poorly designed logic/theory, use this video and then extrapolate so many other things from there;