Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Go on record. Who still wants Watson?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Agent Blue said:

Please inform us how you can be sure of sexual assault if 

1) You were not present to actually see or hear said incident. 

2) You have seen no video of said incident. 

3) You have heard no audio of said incident. 

4) You have seen or heard no confession of said incident. 

#goesandgrabspopcorn

Guys who are guilty of rape would absolutely love to have someone like you on their jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, philit99 said:

Agreed. How much money did Richardson shell out for his creepy messages? Money sure seems to cure immortal statements and actions.

Money, power and fame also help a lot of these guys get away with the stuff they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Agent Blue said:

There is a difference between believing something and being sure of something. 

 

What’s the difference? speaking to Tracy Morgan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Guys who are guilty of rape would absolutely love to have someone like you on their jury.

I would go off the evidence available. 

I would not convict anyone on some he said she said. 

Gotta be something more. 

There is an old saying. Goes like i'd rather 100 criminals walk free than convict and imprison 1 innocent man. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Money, power and fame also help a lot of these guys get away with the stuff they do.

I agree Mr Scot. My issue is the number of complaints that happen well after the fact, as if to simply pile on to something you condoned at the time. I honestly think Watson has issues, but this just seems like character assassination or a money grab, revenge deal.

Edited by philit99
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, philit99 said:

What’s the difference? speaking to Tracy Morgan.

Sure means you have zero doubt. Basically what you are asserting is a fact. You leave no room for other possibilities. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Agent Blue said:

Sure means you have zero doubt. Basically what you are asserting is a fact. You leave no room for other possibilities. 

 

 

 

I’m pretty sure those are not poisonous. I’m pretty sure you do not, run.....My bag has a sandwich? lol

 

Edited by philit99
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Agent Blue said:

I would go off the evidence available. 

I would not convict anyone on some he said she said. 

Gotta be something more. 

There is an old saying. Goes like i'd rather 100 criminals walk free than convict and imprison 1 innocent man. 

Here's the thing: Sometimes, there's not.

And no, there doesn't have to be, especially when the men in question are careful.

Again, here's hoping if you ever have a wife or a daughter or anyone who suffers something of this sort, you learn to grow up a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Here's the thing: Sometimes, there's not.

And no, there doesn't have to be, especially when the men in question are careful.

Again, here's hoping if you ever have a wife or a daughter or anyone who suffers something of this sort, you learn to grow up a little bit.

Yea, and in those cases you gotta let the people walk. 

Because if you don't, you are going to convict innocent people. 

Blackstone's ratio.

It sucks when bad guys get to walk, but it's even worse when an innocent man is convicted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, philit99 said:

I agree Mr Scot. My issue is the number of complaints that happen well after the fact, as if to simply pile on to something you condoned at the time. I honestly think Watson has issues, but this just seems like character assassination.

As I and others have said, when you actually know someone who's been a victim of something like this, you're not surprised by that at all.

Justice for cases of sexual assault is extremely difficult even under simple circumstances, and the circumstances around Watson are anything but simple.

If you ever have a chance to talk to an actual victim, you learn that the way a man thinks about stuff like this is often completely off the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Agent Blue said:

Yea, and in those cases you gotta let the people walk. 

Because if you don't, you are going to convict innocent people. 

Blackstone's ratio.

It sucks when bad guys get to walk, but it's even worse when an innocent man is convicted. 

Ah, but again, we're talking about civil cases here.

The only requirement to win a civil case is to be more believable.

Your standards of "won't believe it unless there's video / audio / whatever" wouldn't even stand up in a criminal court, much less a civil one.

Like I said, every rapist who goes to court hopes they get someone like you in the jury.

You're part of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Agent Blue said:

Yea, and in those cases you gotta let the people walk. 

Because if you don't, you are going to convict innocent people. 

Blackstone's ratio.

It sucks when bad guys get to walk, but it's even worse when an innocent man is convicted. 

You are you even trying to argue here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...