Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baddog
I don't know, I guess it had something to do with "if he gets off due to THIS and not due to evidence, i would be correct, however, if he got off due to lengthy court trial, and was found innocent that would be different."
But as long as you agree with me, it is all good  |
man you know as well as i do, message boards, exact thoughts, do not mix.
i cant word my thoughts correctly all the time.
i said nowhere on this board EVER, that he was guilty.
my point still stands in that regard:
if he gets off due to a kid telling lies under oath, why would one assume that means his innocence?
that is the exact same as because you scratched on the eightball, my pool skills are better than yours.
not the case.
technicalities do not mean innocence.
now, on the other hand. Say the kid was not caught in a lie, and despite his testimony Michael was found INNOCENT, dont you think that would carry more weight than getting off on a technicality?
that was my simply point.... sorry i cant word this shit right.
i havent drank or smoked pot in so long sobreity fucks me up more than intoxicants
