Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Altariel

“The man is also a victim, unless you have substantive evidence he is guilty a crime.

How are you coming on that?”

Yes, I lined that out. I gave three possible scenarios. In the first, he’s an innocent guy when hyper police break in and shoot his dogs in cold blood. In that case, he’s a victim.

Scenario 2 and 3, no, he’s not a victim. Only the dogs are.

You don’t like that I’m working on the assumption that the man really is a pot grower. Yet you are working on the assumption that the cops really shot his dogs for no good reason. That is not for certain either, you know.


78 posted on 10/21/2012 7:43:07 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Persevero

I recognize the assumption, just as I recognize the lack of evidence for said assumption.

There is evidence for the cops’ guilt: three dead dogs.

There has been none presented for the man’s alleged guilt, yet you cling to that assumption without evidence for it.


82 posted on 10/21/2012 8:16:52 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson