|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your claim in post #255 was that determining his guilt or innocence required omniscient powers.
My counter to that, is that you don't. It's actually spelled out on actual physical paper what it takes to determine his guilt or innocence and under what circumstances the government might be empowered to even enact such an inquiry. Until that's done, he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. Which makes him innocent. And that's not disputable.
Oh ok whatever.
Your claim was that "he did nothing wrong". My response rightly questioned how you could possibly know that.
If you had said instead "he's innocent until proven guilty" it would have been entirely correct. Funny you're only saying that now after I roasted you over your previous argument which was, taken literally, quite retarded.
|