I'm correcting it to $14k, not $24k, after reading back a little bit (not that it really matters). There's no leap. When you say that someone is "hanging onto money" for you, the verb itself implies that they are performing the action and are aware of the action they are performing. If he had said something like "I left $14k at her place," then you wouldn't be able to get there without inferring that she's aware of it. Now, him implying that she knew about the money doesn't PROVE that she did know. But the idea that him refusing to directly implicate her after the fact PROVES she didn't know about the money or that he was dealing is ridiculous.
No it doesn't, slang is slang. It's not meant to convey every factual piece of data along the way. "Yo man, my girl holding my money." Doesn't imply she even knows about it. "Yea, my girl has my money." Doesn't imply she knows about it. It just means he's saying he doesn't have it. Again, there is no need to prove innocence, because you don't prove negatives. Him not implicating her just keeps it at the baseline: not involved, innocent. Me having to continually state that is ridiculous. It'd be like me saying, well, Indy, I've seen no proof you aren't a pedophile... but you did hang out with that one guy that used to write love letters, and do favors, for and to young men. See. Ridiculous.
I don’t agree with you at all. What about when he asked her about one of his associates, and she replied that the associate was “already at the trap”? Does that imply that she had knowledge of Glover’s drug trade? What sort of mental gymnastics do you have to perform to get around that one? You’re continuously stating it because you’re continuously mischaracterizing my argument. I’m not arguing that she’s guilty of being involved with his drug business. I’m arguing that there was reason to believe she could be, which justifies looking into it. IP claimed that that had been “debunked,” which I’m arguing against. Again, I’m not saying she WAS involved. I’m saying that there’s no proof that she wasn’t. Of course she’s innocent until proven guilty, just like any other person who is thought to have potentially committed a crime. Glover’s claim that she wasn’t involved doesn’t vindicate her. I get that you’re being facetious, to a degree, but the two scenarios aren’t even remotely similar, and the comparison just shows how disingenuous you’re being in your approach to this situation. I had lunch with Sab one time. I’ve only seen the dude in person one time. Sab also hasn’t been charged or convicted of being a pedophile. Breonna Taylor dated Glover for an extended period of time. She’s on recorded calls saying she loves him. He has mail shipped to her house. There’s all kinds of evidence that they had a significant relationship. Comparing that to me having lunch with a guy one time is intentionally disingenuous.
From the bottom up: no, it is not disingenuous. It is trying to get your little mind around the concept that appearances, entanglements, friendships, or whatever, are not guilt. None of those things are proof that she was involved, or even knowledgeable about the guy's business, anymore than your association with Sab is evidence of you being involved with any of his shit. There are entire marriages, lifetimes of people being together, where one person knew not the first thing about the others illicit behavior. Hell, that's how affairs even work--the loved one doesn't know shit. It's bullshit to assume that, without proof, there was any knowledge. And it's even more bullshit to need proof that there isn't. That's not how it works, because you cannot prove a negative. There is no need to vindicate her. She is at the baseline of vindication. It requires proof to go the other way. She is innocent, uninvolved, vindicated, until proven otherwise. It has been debunked, because there is no proof that she was involved. Therefore, she was not. Debunked. They looked. They found nothing. Debunked. They looked, they found nothing. Not involved. Debunked. That simple. I don't understand your top question. When who was asked, what?
At no point have I stated she was guilty. Suspicion and guilt are not the same thing. You can be innocent (not guilty) but not free of suspicion. You can be vindicated by having suspicion proven incorrect, even when you were innocent the entire time. And the majority of your post about people not knowing things in relationships is a waste of time because: On a recorded call with Breonna Taylor, Jamarcus Glover asked Breonna about the whereabouts of one of his “associates,” who he was allegedly expecting to post his bail. Breonna replied he’s “already at the trap.”
Which is proof of what? That she used the word "trap?" It's proof of nothing, except that you have a belief of what it means, but not of what it actually means to her. Which gets back exactly to people having relationships, but not knowledge of activities. And use of language is not proof of an activity. You don't prove suspicion incorrect, Jesus. You prove it correct. You can never prove a negative. As an example, how many times would someone need to raid a house and find nothing to "prove" suspicion incorrect? 1, 10, 100, 1000? Infinite. It cannot be quantified because you cannot prove a negative. You prove suspicion. There is no proof of it. They attempted to prove suspicion was justified, and failed to do so. Thus, vindicated. Thus, debunked.
I read the first sentence, and I’m done. If you’re going to pretend that her referring to a location as “the trap” while talking to a known drug dealer, with whom she’s been in a relationship for an extended period of time, isn’t evidence of her awareness of his trade, then I’m done with this conversation. Edit: I read the rest. You can absolutely prove suspicion incorrect. What the [uck fay] do you think an alibi is? It’s literally proof that suspicion is incorrect (assuming it can be verified). But again, I’m done engaging with you on this.
If an alibi can prove suspicion incorrect, then why doesn't the search of her home prove her suspicion incorrect? An alibi covers an exact period of time, no more. You've stated that drugs and money could have been there previously, so suspicion still stands. Wha would it take to remove suspicion, a time machine? Ie: cannot be proven incorrect, based on the stupid shit you've said.
Because a confirmed alibi is hard evidence. If Joe was murdered Saturday night at 7 pm, and the police suspect that Jim murdered him, they're suspicious of Jim. If Jim claims he was out shopping with his wife at the time of the murder, he has an alibi. If the police review security footage from the stores at which Jim claims he was shopping, and they see him on camera, his alibi is confirmed. The confirmed alibi proves their suspicion of Jim incorrect, and they move on to other suspects. You're correct about the exact period of time. The search of her home proves nothing except that she did not have drugs or money in her home at the time they searched it. Them finding mail with his name on it could slightly perpetuate the suspicion, since one thing they suspected is that he was having drugs shipped directly to her apartment. But as we've discussed, they don't have enough evidence to proof that beyond a reasonable doubt or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew he was shipping drugs there (even if they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew he was dealing). So, again, she's still innocent despite their suspicion. But that's not what I've been arguing about. I've been arguing that the suspicion hasn't been proven incorrect. Not finding anything at her apartment during the raid does not prove it was never there at all. There's not enough evidence to prove that she was involved in any way, but there is still the same evidence that led to the suspicion that she was involved, at one point or another. Them failing to uncover anything in her apartment doesn't eliminate that suspicion. The ex boyfriend claiming she wasn't involved doesn't eliminate that suspicion. She is still 100% innocent, aka not guilty of a crime, in the same way that Jim was innocent throughout the entirety of my above example. And she would have remained innocent until further evidence was potentially uncovered to prove her involvement. But that doesn't mean the suspicion disappears or was incorrect in the first place. But for real, no more responses from me. I need to actually get work done today.
And how does that alibi help with suspicion that Jim hired someone to murder Joe? It doesn't. All it shows is that Jim didn't do the deed directly. Suspicion can still exist, hence, it has not proven it incorrect. Because you can't prove a negative. But let me ask: what would prove the suspicion of her incorrect, Indy?
sounds like we have been misled on several details, and the governor is releasing information from the grand jury after a juror complained. one example is apparently the officers did enter the apartment before shots were fired, and there is body camera footage
I've been working under the impression this entire time that they entered the home and the bf fired his shot. How is that new information?
I'm not 100% there is anything that can prove the suspicion of her incorrect, which is okay, because the standard of guilt is not suspicion. My argument has never been that she was guilty. My claim was that saying the idea she could have been involved had been "debunked" was silly.
If there isn't anything that can prove suspicion incorrect, then it is impossible to prove suspicion incorrect, ie: a negative. Just like guilt. Which is not okay, because that creates a system in which things can be done, without any means to stop them, and a system in which everything is justifiable, because suspicion can't be proven not to exist. And that's a stupid system, pedophile. Now if we stay in your stupid system, me calling you a pedophile is annoying, but justified. Because I can't prove the suspicion incorrect. If you want to come over to a good system, you are more than welcome to abandon your stupid one, and use the one where you being a pedophile is silly without proof. Which ya think, pedo?
this comparison would only be fair if investigators broke down his door tonight to investigate these suspicions and shot him if he resisted their unspoken authority, with his death being legally justified to anyone who truly cares about children.
Under his idea of a solid justice system, this would be acceptable. I mean, anyone else would find it stupid, but takes all kinds, I guess.
You are twisting my words (again). You asked me if there was anything that could prove the suspicion of her, specifically, incorrect. I answered by saying that I'm not 100% sure that there is anything that can prove suspicion of her, specifically, incorrect. That's not a definitive statement. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm not aware of it, at this point. And this is ALL in relation to Breonna Taylor, specifically. You go from a not definitive statement about a specific person/event, and spin it into a definitive statement about situations of suspicion in general. This is literally what you do, and it's bull shit, incorrect, and tiresome. It's why I hate talking to you on here. And then you go on to make more ridiculously stupid generalizations. The suspicion of Breonna Taylor being involved in Jamarcus Glover's drug trade was justified because of the evidence: He's on tape saying she's holding money for him She's on tape referring to a trap house (suggests knowledge of his trade) They have evidence of him sending mail to her house They have video of him driving from the trap house to her house, coming out with a package, and then driving back to the trap house They were in a somewhat long term relationship, as evidence by the many times they told each other "I love you" on the phone Dissect each piece individually, if you want. Knock yourself out. Regardless of whatever bull shit you try to twist it into, all of these pieces of evidence, together, justify their suspicion of her, NOT the fact that they can't prove the suspicion incorrect. What evidence do you have of me being a pedophile? That I ate lunch with Sab one day? What evidence do you have of Sab being a pedophile? Any recorded conversations? Any videos? Anything at all? What evidence do you even have that that lunch took place? Of course you don't have any of that. And, as such, you can't justify any suspicion of me being a pedophile. Your comparison is beyond stupid, and I'm honestly amazed that you've continued trying to push it this long.
I'm not twisting your words, you can't understand simple concepts. Suspicion of anyone is an instance of suspicion as a whole. Which means if there exists an instance of suspicion, where suspicion can never be proved incorrect, then all instances of suspicion can never be proved incorrect. Which places it in the same logical construct as any other negative. Yes, you are saying it doesn't exist--I'm asking you what would prove suspicion of her incorrect, to you. Your inability to come up with what would prove suspicion incorrect, shows that it is impossible (because it is). As such, she is an example of an impossible instance of the construction of suspicion, which firmly places suspicion as a negative. If it is impossible to prove suspicion incorrect, because it is impossible to prove suspicion incorrect, then having a system that allows impossibilities to dictate action in the system is stupid. That's why there exists the concept of innocent until proven guilty, because negative systems are stupid, and the system would be guilty until proven innocent. And that is exactly the construct you've built here: suspicious until proven otherwise. Except the "otherwise" cannot be proven, which means you end up with just: suspicious. This means, based on this philosophy you've got going here, that everyone is suspicious, at all times. I don't need any evidence pedophile. I'm using your system. It's a poor system, to be sure, but its the one you keep defending. And using it, you're a suspected pedophile, and cannot prove otherwise.
