The Pitters' Place

Holy crap.... Sean Hannity is actually RIGHT about this! And he's interviewing phe_de on his show.

For those unwilling to watch a shouting match between grown men: Here's an article that summarizes the Hannity segment not too badly.
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382835/se ... lter-scott

How do we know they were really shouting at each other, though? How do we really know they were grown men? It was just a video. Maybe there were cuts?

Derived Absurdity wrote:How do we know they were really shouting at each other, though? How do we really know they were grown men? It was just a video. Maybe there were cuts?

Since the persons in this video are not on trial for murder (as far as I know), there are no plans of using this video as evidence. Therefore it doesn't really matter.

haha phe de, you are funny!

And since this forum is not a courtroom, and no one here is on the jury for the case, it doesn't really matter that the guy is legally innocent until proven guilty. All the things that you've said would be great things for a judge or a juror to say in the trial. They have no real relevance to discussing what happened here.

^What the evil Christian said. "Sometimes we know a person is guilty" has a specific context, so does "innocent until proven guilty". I know that O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake are murderers but the people with the authority to make that decision decided differently. That doesn't mean anything when discussing the cases on a message board.

I saw a documentary on OJ Simpson and didn't sleep for two nights. Also, that was obviously a crime that involved drugs with pseudo celebrities like Robert Kardashian and the such. So bottom line, don't get involve in weird shit.

Gendo wrote:And since this forum is not a courtroom, and no one here is on the jury for the case, it doesn't really matter that the guy is legally innocent until proven guilty. All the things that you've said would be great things for a judge or a juror to say in the trial. They have no real relevance to discussing what happened here.

Fair enough.

Gendo wrote:And since this forum is not a courtroom, and no one here is on the jury for the case, it doesn't really matter that the guy is legally innocent until proven guilty. All the things that you've said would be great things for a judge or a juror to say in the trial. They have no real relevance to discussing what happened here.

Saying that a video of the incident is not strong evidence because it's a little shaky and has cuts (I'm thinking the cuts are just for what was released to the media, I doubt the person filming stopped recording and then started again, and besides there were no cuts between the time the pig started shooting and the time the victim fell to the ground) is a great thing for a defense attorney to say. If the judge or a juror said that I'd question their sanity and/or motives.

BruceSmith78 wrote:

Gendo wrote:And since this forum is not a courtroom, and no one here is on the jury for the case, it doesn't really matter that the guy is legally innocent until proven guilty. All the things that you've said would be great things for a judge or a juror to say in the trial. They have no real relevance to discussing what happened here.

Saying that a video of the incident is not strong evidence because it's a little shaky and has cuts (I'm thinking the cuts are just for what was released to the media, I doubt the person filming stopped recording and then started again, and besides there were no cuts between the time the pig started shooting and the time the victim fell to the ground) is a great thing for a defense attorney to say. If the judge or a juror said that I'd question their sanity and/or motives.

Mostly I just meant the whole thing about not assuming guilt before all evidence is reviewed and there has been a fair trial.