- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1.)Your lying behavior and dishonesty runs deep.
2.)You obviously do not know what a fact is.
3.) And you obviously do not know that the Prosecution has to prove his account wrong by the evidence, if not his account stands.
4.) So please continue with your absurd replies, like I said, I am here to counter there stupidity.
If he thought someone was trying to break in, then why did he open his front door before he shot her through the screen door? Who in their right mind would open their door like that, if they thought someone was attempting to break in? Nobody, that's who.
Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?
Based on the evidence, here is what I believe happened.
1) He heard the knock on the door.
2) He armed himself, to be on the safe side (OK, that makes sense).
3) He opened the front door.
4) The gun accidentally discharged, hitting the girl.
5) He then attempts to invent a story to explain away his carelessness.
Not murder, by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely manslaughter, as her death was caused by his carelessness.
More absurd nonsense from you.1.) you keep saying this but cant prove it and your posts keep failing, please stay on topic
2.) another post lie you havent been able to support with one fact
3.) which was already done since there no evidence of attempted forced entry
4.) and yet every post you made has failed because it has been destroyed by facts as pointed out by me and others.
your post failed and gets destroyed by facts again
fact remains there isnt credence without factual evidence or reasonable and rational logic
PLEASE stay on topic and in the next post provide any facts that support your post lies . . . . EVEN ONE will work . . . one
You can not show there was any deliberate pointing.You missed one. He pointed the gun at the girl.
More absurd nonsense from you.
Figures.
You must not realize that there are different ways to use the word.
In the following, I am using it two ways.* as something that actually is true.
and
* as something that is said to be true. (which you obviously didn't know, otherwise you would not have been telling the untruths as you have.)
Fact - You saying I provided no fact is an untruth. *
Facts already provided.*Fact - He heard banging. *
Fact - He believed someone was trying to break-in. *
The second form of use being often used in Court, with the jurors being the triers of said "facts". i.e.: Deciding who is believable.
fact (fækt)
n.
1. something that actually exists: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
5. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
Idioms:
1. after the fact, done, made, or formulated after something has occurred.
2. in fact, in truth; really; indeed: They are, in fact, great patriots.
[1530–40; < Latin factum something done, deed]
fact′ful, adj.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
fact - definition of fact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You have again been destroyed by facts, and now by the word "fact" itself. Go figure, So entertaining. :lamo
You can not show there was any deliberate pointing.
So saying "he pointed" hasn't been proven.
Why this needs to be pointed out is perplexing. It is as bad as having to point out what the word actually means.
The fact remains that you are still wrong and were stating untruths.fact remains there isnt legal credence without factual evidence or reasonable and rational logic
please NEVER stop posting these fails
PLEASE stay on topic and in the next post provide any facts that support your post lies . . . . EVEN ONE will work . . . one
another moving of the goal post and making up something that was never said and another complete failThe fact remains that you are still wrong and were stating untruths.
The fact remains that you are the one who fails because you have no clue as to what you speak.
The fact remains that his statements are factual evidence.
The fact remains that the prosecutor has to prove his statements false or they stand as they are.
You clearly have failed.fact remains there isnt legal credence without factual evidence or reasonable and rational logic
please NEVER stop posting these fails
PLEASE stay on topic and in the next post provide any facts that support your post lies . . . . EVEN ONE will work . . . one
1.)You clearly have failed.
2.) Facts have already been given.
3.) Nor do you have any idea of how the legal system works.
His statements are facts.
fact remains there isnt legal credence without factual evidence or reasonable and rational logic. There needs to be a determination based on that.
please NEVER stop posting these fails
currently his statements are NOT facts, sorry your opinion will never change this
PLEASE stay on topic and in the next post provide any facts that support your post lies . . . . EVEN ONE will work . . . one . . . . . ONE
You clearly have failed.
Facts have already been given.
Nor do you have any idea of how the legal system works.
His statements are facts.
Cool. My statements are facts too, then.
I once killed King Kong with my bare hands.
It must be true, since I said it. :mrgreen:
It is true that you said it. That is a fact. That is all.Cool. My statements are facts too, then.
I once killed King Kong with my bare hands.
It must be true, since I said it. :mrgreen:
In the following, I am using it two ways.
* as something that actually is true.
and
* as something that is said to be true. (which you obviously didn't know, otherwise you would not have been telling the untruths as you have.)
Fact - You saying I provided no fact is an untruth. *
Facts already provided.*
Fact - He heard banging. *
Fact - He believed someone was trying to break-in. *
The second form of use being often used in Court, with the jurors being the triers of said "facts". i.e.: Deciding who is believable.
fact (fækt)
n.Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
1. something that actually exists: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
5. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
Idioms:
1. after the fact, done, made, or formulated after something has occurred.
2. in fact, in truth; really; indeed: They are, in fact, great patriots.
[1530–40; < Latin factum something done, deed]
fact′ful, adj.
fact - definition of fact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Wrong.yep this is what is being implied and its simply factually not true ad the answer to my question further proves it
Wrong.another moving of the goal post and making up something that was never said and another complete fail
fact remains there isnt legal credence without factual evidence or reasonable and rational logic. There needs to be a determination based on that.
please NEVER stop posting these fails
PLEASE stay on topic and in the next post provide any facts that support your post lies . . . . EVEN ONE will work . . . one
The jury, or a Judge in a bench trial, is the trier of fact.There needs to be a determination based on that.
Wrong.
The jury, or a Judge in a bench trial, is the trier of fact.
Wrong.
Facts were given.
Your posted claim is factually wrong as proven by facts and multiple posters, sorry. His statements are currently not facts.
If you disagree by all means simply answer this question:
how facts are determined in a criminal case?
then after that simply provide any facts that support the lie in your post, so far there has been none provide. We'd love to read it
thread history, facts and muiltiple posters all prove this to be factually wrong.
But if you disagree please post the facts you speak of now.
Did I stutter?repeat this again, i want to be clear, did you say the jury?The jury, or a Judge in a bench trial, is the trier of fact.There needs to be a determination based on that.
The jury, or a Judge in a bench trial, is the trier of fact.
1.) Wrong! It has already been done.
2.) Did you not know that?
It is true that you said it. That is a fact. That is all.
So how the hell did you get that it must be true out of something said to be true?
Huh?
Do you, like J, also not know how the word "fact" is used?
So again, since it is obvious that you didn't read, or didn't understand what came previously.
You missed one. He pointed the gun at the girl.
Without gainsaying anyone's opinion - I am particularly puzzled by one part of the man's story. I have never heard of anyone attempting to break into a house at dead of night by either knocking or banging on the door.
Can anyone explain the logic of this method? I am simply curious.
True, when it in the dead of night people break in a door silently. :roll:
Contrary to popular belief, nearly all people ignore noises.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?