OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

of course it does.


It's called innocent until proven guilty.

If it was the other way around, all you need is for someone to accuse you of something without PROOF

Yup.

But he's just here to 'win'.

That's why he's set it up to where he 'wins' unless you can prove a negative. Which he knows is not possible.


Why anyone still plays his pointless, childish games is beyond me. But as long as y'all keep playing it, he'll keep 'winning' it. Every time too. I've never once seen the guy concede a point he's argued. Not once. Ever.

Have you......

[travestyny]

completely innocent....

number one the glove didnt fit

number two the lead detective Mark Fuhrman pleaded the 5th when asked if he had manufactured or tampered with evidence


but nice try tho

of course it does.


It's called innocent until proven guilty.

If it was the other way around, all you need is for someone to accuse you of something without PROOF

Oh really now?


Found not guilty. 4 months later, they admit they were guilty. How can it be, Big Javi??????

Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, who were found not guilty in a trial for the 1955 murder of black teenager Emmett Till, confess in an article in Look magazine published Jan. 24, 1956. The white men tell what happened in "The Shocking Story of Approved Killing in Mississippi."

I thought not guilty means completely innocent!???

Explain.

[bigjavi973]

Oh really now?


Found not guilty. 4 months later, they admit they were guilty. How can it be, Big Javi??????




I thought not guilty means completely innocent!???

Explain.

do you know how silly you look comparing a known RACIST case (rip till) and oj simpson and the lead detective who PLEADED THE 5TH when asked if he tampered or manufactured evidence

[travestyny]

do you know how silly you look comparing a known RACIST case (rip till) and oj simpson and the lead detective who PLEADED THE 5TH when asked if he tampered or manufactured evidence

So what you're saying is that a not guilty verdict doesn't always mean innocent???? You don't say

Does a not guilty verdict mean that you are innocent?

of course it does.

Do you know how stupid you look for not being able to understand this

WHAT IS NOT GUILTY?
When it comes to a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." That last clause "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2...cent-and-not-/

Now come back and admit you're wrong. You can do it!

[1bad65]

do you know how silly you look comparing a known RACIST case (rip till) and oj simpson and the lead detective who PLEADED THE 5TH when asked if he tampered or manufactured evidence

You look silly playing his game.

Again, the guy has never once conceded a point here that he's argued. Never.

You'd have better luck getting a brick wall to concede it was wrong.

(For a laugh, ask him to cite himself ever 'losing' one of these e-contests.....)


Remember, this clown once posted here for 24 hours straight, as well as all day last Christmas. He cant 'lose'.

This won't stop til he gets the last word, and he gets to rub in his latest 'win'.

Why give him the time of day?

[travestyny]

You look silly playing his game.

Again, the guy has never once conceded a point here that he's argued. Never.

You'd have better luck getting a brick wall to concede it was wrong.

(For a laugh, ask him to cite himself ever 'losing' one of these e-contests.....)


Remember, this clown once posted here for 24 hours straight, as well as all day last Christmas. He cant 'lose'.

This won't stop til he gets the last word, and he gets to rub in his latest 'win'.

Why give him the time of day?

I've already won. Read it and weep, Sunspace

[travestyny]

How about one more....just because I enjoy rubbing it in when someone comes across as rather smug.

Does a not guilty verdict mean that you are innocent?

of course it does.

Not guilty vs. innocent: What’s the difference?

Guilty or not guilty. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the USA court of law the verdict is “guilty” or “not guilty” instead of “guilty” or “innocent.” Not guilty does not mean innocent. But, are the acquitted innocent?

Authors Danile Givelber and Amy Farrell in their 2012 book, Not Guilty; Are the Acquitted Innocent? wrote “Judges in criminal cases tell jurors that they must presume that the accused are not guilty of the crimes charged. They also tell jurors that prosecutors are obliged to introduce evidence to persuade them beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty. If the state succeeds in doing so, then juries must convict. If the state fails to eliminate reasonable doubt about guilt, juries must acquit. A not guilty verdict says something definitive about the evidence that the state introduced: it was insufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt about guilt from the minds of the jurors. But acquittals do not answer, nor even address, the question of whether defendants are factually innocent. All we know is that the juries were not persuaded that the defendants committed the crimes charged.”

https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f

Did you get it this time around, or nah?

[bigjavi973]

So what you're saying is that a not guilty verdict doesn't always mean innocent????

bruh wtf are you talking about? Are you high on crack right now or something?


again....you are comparing a court case from the 50s (racism deeply involved)
to an OJ trial from the 90s.


again do you know how silly that sounds?

stop twisting what I wrote you can easily go back and quote them.

you are pushing trolling right now

[bigjavi973]

Even their red herrings arent cutting it this time.

Interestingly enough, Simpson was found liable for the crime in a civil trial.

That obviously didnt happen in Trump's case.

The superfans, in their desperation, used a very bad analogy.

So once again we see that stupid is as stupid does.

he doesnt understand the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty.

He is lucky we dont live in a country that all you have to do is say "he did it" and your life is ruined forever.

[bigjavi973]

How about one more....just because I enjoy rubbing it in when someone comes across as rather smug.











Did you get it this time around, or nah?

"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. ... The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted."


lets say you accuse me of murdering your neighbor, but I wasn't even in the damn town at the time. Lets say I can't produce a receipt of some kind to prove that I wasn't there, but there was no dna evidence or any of the sort. They find me "not guilty".




Does that mean im innocent of that said crime? Or am I still guilty by association or some shit?


because that's what you are explaining that you are guilty REGARDLESS since there's no technical way to prove you are innocent UNLESS someone else admits to the crime or gets found guilty in the court of law.






you can keep trying its not gonna work your trollish behavior is becoming annoying