Pic is worth a 1000 words

One is a black man who was on a bad track. He was killed by the police. The other is a racist and a hater who was building an organization to spread hate and make himself rich and powerful.
 
Lack of a trial doesn't remove other evidence. Fucking moron.
Here’s the way it works in this country, you fucking idiot.

A trial is conducted and the evidence is presented by BOTH SIDES. The jury considers that evidence and comes to a conclusion. The UNANIMOUS verdict was murder, not overdose.

Now, fucking moron, the convicted murderer can appeal and present new evidence. Until that happens, fucking moron, your “alternate facts” are just that.

Take your ball and go home, sonny, you’re mommy is calling and this game is over.
 
Here’s the way it works in this country, you fucking idiot.

A trial is conducted and the evidence is presented by BOTH SIDES. The jury considers that evidence and comes to a conclusion. The UNANIMOUS verdict was murder, not overdose.

So? If one side wants to present evidence and it is disallowed, then what? If one side presents evidence and the court ignores it, then what? If evidence is presented that has no foundation in fact, should it be disallowed?

Not all trials are fair and equal, particularly when the government is one party to it.
 
Back
Top