What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went “nuh-uh!” and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.
The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it.
Sure, sure, and if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden you ain’t black. These are awful fallacious arguments you’re making. Just awful.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings?
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
Meaningless excuse.
. . . Okay, look, nevermind.
No, let’s mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It’s a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You’re making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I’ll hear of it. Toodle-oo.
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went “nuh-uh!” and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.
Sure, sure, and if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden you ain’t black. These are awful fallacious arguments you’re making. Just awful.
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
. . . Okay, look, nevermind.
Meaningless excuse.
No, let’s mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It’s a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You’re making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I’ll hear of it. Toodle-oo.
Okbye