As he should. Just like if he did it, he should face the consequences. If it's BS, and maybe I just want it to be but it seems to be pointing in that direction, I hope he ruins her.
Bull. To you and hat. Nobody in that thread is pretending our legal system finds anything remotely akin to reality. In fact, the primary argument was that the grand jury had more info than anyone else and concluded sufficient threat existed. Doesn't mean it was right. You just don't like that the process didn't support your worldview, as has been repeated here over and over. Same in the NY case. The outcome has nothing to do with complete or incomplete.
The only witnesses to the event were the accuser and the accused. That wasn't the case in the Ferguson shooting.
if one is faced with two different sides of a story, does one usually find that the truth is as one or the other of the two different versions claim, or somewhere in the middle?
who tried to have it both ways? You're trying to make this thing fit your argument because you'd prefer that the legal result have been different. That has nothing at all to do with what I think of our legal system coming to appropriate conclusions. How am I asking that it work both ways. The argument on the other side was that the legal system can only do what it is built to do. When it starts bending to your wants, it's no longer a legal system. It's your system.
Scooby effed everything up. And his pain in the ass nephew should have been kicked off the top of a castle.
I didn't have a preferred legal result. In the other thread, the mantra was "aha! That settles it. They had more facts than anyone." Here, under the same conditions, it is "we will never know, based on the way our system works and the incomplete nature of evidence for these sort of crimes." You're trying to have it both ways.
