Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
See my response to Ki. She didn't break any laws. It's an absolute black and white issue.
|
It is not black and white because neither you nor anyone else who would be willing to talk actually knows whether or not she has committed any crimes.
nb4 you say "So you're saying she's guilty just cause she wasn't found 'not guilty'?" because that is not the point. The point is that you are using faulty logic to jump from "She was never found guilty" to "She is innocent". My beliefs about her guilt or innocence are not the issue.
Quote:
Break a law = get charged for breaking a law.
Don't break a law = don't get charged with breaking a law.
|
You are of below average intelligence. To explain what is wrong with that feels like telling someone how to walk. I know how to walk, I do it everyday with minimal difficulties, and yet it's such a natural and obvious thing that if asked to explain walking I would stop, make a funny face in consternation, and then look down at my legs as I slowly walked across the room so that I could actually put into words what should feel obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
You're moving the goal posts. Were you criminally investigated? Was your computer seized? Was your internet supplier subpoenaed?
If all of that is done and no charges are filed then you are not a criminal.
|
You literally do not know the definition of the word "criminal".
Quote:
1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
|
Criminal | Definition of Criminal by Merriam-Webster
Notice that the first definition does not require any sort of criminal proceedings. So not being found guilty does not make a criminal not a criminal. Not that it matters, as you are obfuscating the issue by arguing a point that is meaningless. Whether she is your definition of a criminal or not is so ****ing pointless that you should be beaten to death. What matters is whether or not she actually committed a crime, you airhead.