Gingerteeth
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Gingerteeth's Achievements
-
You will have to prove the ATV moved.
-
What if what if what if.... Considering I have countered your point. Your post is utter nonsense.
-
Can still be tried for negligence resulting in a death.
-
Breaking a vehicle window is destruction of property not theft. One person jumping on the ATV isn't theft. The four youth were drunk by their own admission. This position is strengthened by the fact none of the youth are being charged with theft. These aren't professional theives these are drunk youth being stupid.
-
To get help with a flat tire as the youth said, they were also drunk. Drunk youth don't make good choices but trying to shoehorn the situation into them being thieves is disingenuous. There is currently no evidence, charges or anything else against those youth so it makes zero sense to keep calling them thieves. Posting different articles with different interpretations of the event isn't helpful either and the fact all the parties statements do not add up. Both sides made poor choices.
-
Your point would be correct if they tried for murder again. Details are ambiguous meaning there is no evidence they were comitting armed robbery.
-
They admitted to breaking a truck window and leaving they didn't take anything. And a drunken youth jumping onto an ATV is very flimsy evidence of armed robbery.
-
That statement would be true if they stole stuff from the first two properties which they didn't. So there is no evidence for him to claim that or for you to keep spouting that falsehood.
-
There no evidence for that accusation more telling that none of the youth's were charged with armed robbery and there were no stolen objects in their truck. He was found not guilty of murder he can still be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter if the prosecution decides to try again..
-
The only crime they comitted was smashing a truck window at the second place before Stanley's and even then nothing was removed from there. And possibly drunk driving going by to other youth's statement. It also isn't going to help Stanley's case anyways since he has no knowledge of those events when the truck pulled up in his driveway.
-
You have proved my point by posting a history article from wikipedia.
-
What is lost by the removal of the statue? The knowledge there is about him exists in books and internet.
-
Removing a statue of a person isn't a removal of history.
-
I always know you lost the argument when you start making strawman arguments and red herrings rather than maturely discussing the topic.
-
If the UN sees it as valid it is valid. What the US or Lebanon thinks is irrelevant.