Blaming the victim?

We've been over this, haven't we? Why not admit you haven't read the rules again even though I gave you ample time?

You didn't GIVE me anything. I read the rules a long time ago. If you think I am willfully breaking a rule then point it out. It could have been simple, but you choose to draw it out looking for some "gotcha".

I see you are fading back to your old ways again.
 
I did?

I elected not to post the entire article, in respect of the forum rules.

You posted the first paragraph (which stated the mother was being blamed by the defense) and then skipped over the next 2 paragraphs (which explained why the defense was making that claim) and then elected to post info about the jury selection (which had little bearing on the topic of the thread).

There is no need to post the entire article, but selectively picking only certain sentences is probably not what they had in mind.

And the rules also say post a link. By resizing the internet addy, you make it no longer function as a link.
 
The rule to which you refer states: "Proper format is to post the first few paragraphs and then link to the article for the rest."

The second and third paragraphs state some of the reasons the defense is making the claims they are. You chose to post the first paragraph, then skip the second and third, then posted paragraphs rom on into the article. I contend that you were being deliberately misleading.
 
Now, let's discuss the case and its broader ramifications.

Why is it OK for the accused's lawyer to blame the victim in this case when - according to some - it was wrong to blame Trayvon Martin, who according to some, was a victim in another case?
 
Now, let's discuss the case and its broader ramifications.

Why is it OK for the accused's lawyer to blame the victim in this case when - according to some - it was wrong to blame Trayvon Martin, who according to some, was a victim in another case?

You would have to ask one of those "some". I have no idea. Do you?
 
Back
Top