Sure someone somewhere might think he is guilty but support him anyways. You are being obtuse.

What do you think the majority of his defenders believe?
How about the prominent people who bailed him out whom fender characterized as evil?

The answer is clear and obvious. They (rightly) believe that he is innocent.



Where did you explain it in detail? Not in this thread.

Vague complaints and distractions aren't detailed explanations.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 21 2020 09:07pm

Ok so what?

Is your argument that publicly making the claim Hillary Clinton has carved off a little girl's face and worn it in a satanic ritual (meant to increase the potency of an anti aging chemical found in the little girl's blood before drinking it) is not batshit insane because it can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it is untrue?

Man, people are lazy. After 1776, not long.

I very clearly stated that publishing speculation without contextualising is the province of propaganda not news. I impugned the journalistic integrity of the piece you quoted and thus the news org that published it on that basis.
Nothing vague about that at all. I don't understand what you're having trouble with here... I thought you were the big smart.

The mob chased him. Get your shit straight.

Exactly. Except this kid hasn't expressed any remorse for his crimes and therefore is still a threat to the public. So put a bullet in him.

You impugned it because they didn't criticize and contradict the factual narrative you don't like.
Says more about you than them.

Reporting important facts and witness testimony is valid.
yes its news, even if you don't like it.

The piece did contain contextualization. I quoted the pertinent parts that substantiate my position.
The videos are publicly available and were also reported on elsewhere.

Can you argue against the reported evidence or not?
Or just vague and diversionary attacks on the imagined integrity of one outlet that isn't at all pertinent to the case?

Why would he express remorse for defending himself?

Probably because he killed someone...

George Zimmerman felt A LOT of remorse after he killed Trayvon. At the end of the day, even if it was absolutely necessary, you still feel awful for taking a life. If he hasn't expressed remorse, he needs a new attorney lol.

This is what the founding fathers intended. /s

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 21 2020 09:25pm