In the eyes of the law, on that day, yes, or I would have been arrested. When enough proof is gathered, then I will be a convicted drug dealer. Until then, I am an alledged drug dealer.
In the eyes of the law, on that day, yes, or I would have been arrested. When enough proof is gathered, then I will be a convicted drug dealer. Until then, I am an alledged drug dealer.
In the eyes of the law, on that day, yes, or I would have been arrested. When enough proof is gathered, then I will be a convicted drug dealer. Until then, I am an alledged drug dealer.
Seems like simple reasoning to me. Face it, "stater of the obvious", you don't "know" crap. Oh sure, you suspect a lot, and you are probably 100% right on the button. But are you so sure as to risk libel and slander lawsuits and print these "facts" under your real name? Didn't think so.
Which book on jurisprudence do you sugest I read? Would it be the same one that you read? Do the chapters read anything like tis:
Chapter 1. Guilty Until Proven Innocent: A crash course in easy convictions
Chapter 2. Guilt by Association: Criminals only associate with other criminals
Chapter 3. Public Opinion Convictions: Juries are for wimps!
Grow up, dingbat. My opinion is slightly tongue in cheek, aimed at getting a rise out of those who claim to "state the obvious" when they in fact have no proof.