Search results

By all means carry on!

A case not getting to court due to lack of evidence is not the same at all. I should have corrected your "dismissal" comment as this is not the same thing as a case being dismissed out of court.

Well, for starters, you're dealing with a guy who doesn't consider it rape if a husband forces himself on his wife with 100% proof of guilt. He considers it..."something else". He'd find the husband innocent regardless. He then concocts up this feeble scenario where guilt or innocence can't be...

No, it isn't.

Tell ya what JR, let's address Derf's scenario as presented: "Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces...

Wouldn't even get that far as explained multiple times so was already moot. Duh. You're welcome.

A charge needs to be backed up with substantial evidence before it gets to court. You surely know that much? Derf's scenario was vague and frankly, feeble. If you consider it a test of judgment and that I failed spectacularly then I'm sure you won't be too surprised to hear that I value your...

And as explained to you prior, there isn't enough "evidence" for his scenario to even go to court. No jury or judge would even be required so reducing it to posters giving a "verdict" is nonsense. The best you can do is address it as hypothetical on it's "merits" (or lack thereof) as I have so...

Wow, you too? Eh, shouldn't be that surprised really. In order for a case to get to court there has to be sufficient evidence for it to get that far. Derf's scenario doesn't come close to the level required. Therefore trying to argue that it should be a case of giving a guilty/innocent verdict...

Not to anyone with a basic reading level so thick/dishonest it is with you then. Noted. Well, fun as it usually isn't to bandy words about with you Stripe there's a documentary coming on soon about carpet cleaning which will doubtless be more entertaining. Fare thee well!

They reported what they had to and what was already known outside of far right conspiracy circles. No fraud, Trump lost, Biden won.

Yeah, was being a bit "conservative" in my last estimation...

Nope. Dealt with. Nope, not legally. Detailed and substantive unlike your one sentence tropes.

Recognizing oppressive regimes and the victims of such should be taught, I've no problem with it.

They'll still be moaning on about this come 2032...

Probably scared of a lawsuit.

Nope. This was clearly explained to you a few posts ago so what tripped you up? The one he provided was lame and wouldn't make it anywhere near court. Dunno how the legal system works in New Zealand but over here there's a certain standard of evidence required before things go before a jury...

Nope. Well, he should have concocted a better scenario then shouldn't he cos the one he's proposed wouldn't make it anywhere near the courtroom. That's the only sensible way to address it. No juror would either be required or expected to give a verdict given the complete derf - sorry, dearth of...

It's almost funny...

No. At this point you're either thick or willfully dishonest or both. There's no "verdict" in this as as explained numerous times already. In order for a verdict there'd have to be sufficient evidence in order for a case to make it to court. Now, you do get that right? Right? That ain't gonna be...