"But he was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."
No. That's speculation on your part. He CLAIMS he was just peeing. The state claims otherwise. He got convicted for more than 'just peeing'. Obviously there must have been more evidence AGAINST his claim than for it considering he was found guilty.
"They aren’t ‘points of evidence’; they’re ‘points of speculation’."
It is evidence...what do you think evidence is?
"Asserting something as fact doesn’t make it fact."
No, but if that statement is a fact, then it's a fact. What is your point? The statement in question IS factual.
"He was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."
No. He says he was urinating. The state says otherwise. Since he got convicted of something more than public urination, to assume he was only peeing is gross speculation against all evidence.
Do sex offenders deserve a second chance?
← View full post
"But he was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."
No. That's speculation on your part. He CLAIMS he was just peeing. The state claims otherwise. He got convicted for more than 'just peeing'. Obviously there must have been more evidence AGAINST his claim than for it considering he was found guilty.
"They aren’t ‘points of evidence’; they’re ‘points of speculation’."
It is evidence...what do you think evidence is?
"Asserting something as fact doesn’t make it fact."
No, but if that statement is a fact, then it's a fact. What is your point? The statement in question IS factual.
"He was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."
No. He says he was urinating. The state says otherwise. Since he got convicted of something more than public urination, to assume he was only peeing is gross speculation against all evidence.