HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
DVC has never been correct to the argument, but to his statements. It's a distinction with merit. Take that old argument with malicious prosecution in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. Someone asked why it was on the books. He right points out that it is impossible to use these days. I said sorta, but he is correct in that statement. I then go on to try to explain how it was originally intended in history and how it could have been applied more readily in the past when there were private prosecutors that could be hired. I then went on to say how it may be applied still today but only in civil matters since the immunity isnt there. He still makes statements like I am wrong because it can't be applied to criminal prosecution which I never once argued with him on. He was making a strawman to make it seem like I was wrong when all I was doing was presenting the history and how it could be used in modern era still, but is was practically a toothless statute on the books. Yet, you still fell for his idiocy strawman arguments because DVC was arguing that Zimmerman was still going to jail for murder like you were also saying. In the end, I was right on that as well and Zimmerman didn't go to jail.
Facebook
Twitter