Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If he was not arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death by slow suffocation by a killer cop and three accomplices in uniform so fucking stupid to do it in front of witnesses with I-phones clicked on video.the thug would be alive today
Anyone with any intelligence will consider him more credible than you on matters regarding pathology.
Great. So we should find him more credible than you when he says it was a homicide and you say it wasn't. Finally we agree.As they should.
What would be the point? You lied when you first said I lied.
Actually, no, we don’t.Great. So we should find him more credible than you when he says it was a homicide and you say it wasn't. Finally we agree.
So you admit you lied. Can you specifically show what I lied about? Or are you just lying again?What would be the point? You lied when you first said I lied.
So we’re both liars. Congratulations to us.
You’re welcome to hold any stupid opinion you want. We agree that, on matters regarding pathology, he’s more credible than you are. There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.Does he know more than me about pathology? Of course. Were his findings entirely based on pathology? In my opinion, no.
You’re going to need to be very specific with what you’re trying to say. If he was acquitted during the trial then that would make him, by definition, not guilty. So I would not consider him guilty. However, based on the medical examiner reports concluding “homicide”, I would believe that the jury made the wrong conclusion, and I would disagree with the jury on their decision.Judging by your obsession with my argument, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that, if Chauvin had been acquitted, you would still think him guilty.
Already told you.So you admit you lied. Can you specifically show what I lied about? Or are you just lying again?
You’re welcome to hold any stupid opinion you want.
We agree that, on matters regarding pathology, he’s more credible than you are.
Yea, yea so you say (a hundred times).There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.
You’re going to need to be very specific with what you’re trying to say. If he was acquitted during the trial then that would make him, by definition, not guilty. So I would not consider him guilty.
Of course you would.However, based on the medical examiner reports concluding “homicide”, I would believe that the jury made the wrong conclusion, and I would disagree with the jury on their decision.
You made a vague accusation and now you're shriveling up instead of backing up your claim. I specifically showed you your lie. You can't do the same, liar.Already told you.
There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.
I do say and you fail to explain why any intelligent person should find your input more likely than his because you have a stupid opinion. QED.Yea, yea so you say (a hundred times).
Of course I thought he was guilty before the trial. I saw the video they released immediately after it happened. I still wanted the analysis from the medical examiner though. What's your point?I’m betting you would anyway. As it is, I’m pretty sure you thought him guilty before the trial.
You made a direct accusation, so?You made a vague accusation and now you're shriveling up instead of backing up your claim. I specifically showed you your lie. You can't do the same, liar.
View attachment 870773
This shit’s getting surreal.I do say and you fail to explain why any intelligent person should find your input more likely than his because you have a stupid opinion. QED.
Of course I thought he was guilty before the trial.
My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.I saw the video they released immediately after it happened. I still wanted the analysis from the medical examiner though. What's your point?
That you admitted to.You made a direct accusation, so?
Wrong. You accused me of lying about my thoughts on Baker’s competence.That you admitted to.
You insisted I answer. So I did. Then you threw a whiny hissy fit about me telling you what I truly believe in response to your question. Yes, I do think you’re questioning Baker’s competence. If that still bothers you, that’s entirely your problem, not mine.Wrong. You accused me of lying about my thoughts on Baker’s competence.
You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?So you had an opinion. Go figure.
My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.
