Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can’t dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
If you read most things JustZ, you would probably take that back… JustZ is a genocide denier in every sense of the word and they always say the other person is dumb when they are challenged.
One opinion has nothing to do with the other. Seems like they earnestly hold their positions, whether I disagree with them or not. Y’all are just trying to take shortcuts to judging someone’s character. You know next to nothing about them.
Kind of funny. The same folks saying Smith’s prior involvement in uncharged murders shouldn’t be considered in his sentencing are also making summary judgments against commenters based on comment history.
Some folks just really embrace contrarianism as a personality trait I suppose.
They should use that in sentencing. If its not convicted it won’t matter as much. It was not used to determine guilt. They determined the defendant was likely aware that his actions along with his friends would lead to violence, and he went along anyways. He also did the only possible thing at the time in running and hiding. We don’t know what he would have done had he had the gun that night. At best that should not go either way towards guilt or innocence.
You only reveal your failure to understand my position. Again, sorry I can’t dumb it down for you any further, the subject inherently complex.
Your position isn’t complex. It’s just reprehensible.
Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can’t dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
To be fair, they replied to a question in good faith and then the other person replied by calling them pro-genocide.
If you read most things JustZ, you would probably take that back… JustZ is a genocide denier in every sense of the word and they always say the other person is dumb when they are challenged.
One opinion has nothing to do with the other. Seems like they earnestly hold their positions, whether I disagree with them or not. Y’all are just trying to take shortcuts to judging someone’s character. You know next to nothing about them.
Kind of funny. The same folks saying Smith’s prior involvement in uncharged murders shouldn’t be considered in his sentencing are also making summary judgments against commenters based on comment history.
Some folks just really embrace contrarianism as a personality trait I suppose.
They should use that in sentencing. If its not convicted it won’t matter as much. It was not used to determine guilt. They determined the defendant was likely aware that his actions along with his friends would lead to violence, and he went along anyways. He also did the only possible thing at the time in running and hiding. We don’t know what he would have done had he had the gun that night. At best that should not go either way towards guilt or innocence.