Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hajman
The man didn't know who the police were.

Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

179 posted on 04/06/2002 6:43:38 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

Unsupported? Don't you know what innocent until proven guilty means? It means the burden of proof is on you to prove him guilty. The supporting evidence that he didn't know who the police were is the lack of evidence that he knew who the police were when they came back. Also, the police acted in a manner consistent of a criminal breaking and entering. The man acted in a manner consistent of protecting his home against a criminal breaking and enterting (which is justifiable). However, for the supporting evidence that the man didn't know who they were:
Now, prove him wrong, or you don't have a case to stand on. BTW, 'rediculous' never proved anything. It would seem you're ignoring the small fact that the man claimed he didn't know who the police were, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

-The Hajman-
180 posted on 04/06/2002 6:52:25 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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