Doesn’t mean that it’s not a terrible deal.

Please tell me you’re joking.

Of course, but in this case, “enough time” could be decades.

Thanks for this. I was deployed with Ashley when she was killed, and had no idea this existed.

There’s coffee on my monitor. +1.

I made the same declaration a year ago. Last month I bought my kid Disney Infinity, which I’m now convinced is much worse.

That’s pretty much the gist of it.

oh damn. +1

It is, but the law was created in order to make destroying KKK insignia a hate crime.

Making you pay for additional content? Some fucking nerve.

Holy shit, dude looks like the Bosnian Kingpin.

The moon? Over dramatic much? At most it’d be the difference between grass and artificial turf.

I simply said that his testimony is relevant. Not that it was true, or that what happened was in any way her fault. Please take your straw man elsewhere.

How do you know that they didn’t contact him?

The paper has no bearing on what is relevant. You seem hung up on that word, but don’t show a basic understanding of its definition.

Which, as I said in my prevous comment, is extremely easy to do.

He didn’t at the time he was interviewed. I’m sure he could verify upon seeing her again. There may even be camera footage that would help determine if it was the same girl. By itself it’s not exonerating, but it’s absolutely relevant.

Whoa there buddy, calm down. It’s very possible that the owner is just stating what he saw. Whether you like it or not, witness statements can be relevant.

Knowing what it means is easy. Anyone can type the word into google. Understanding its use can be much more difficult, as you’ve clearly demonstrated.

Stop throwing around big words. Your questionable use of “non-sequitur” makes it sound like you overheard it in a conversation you weren’t intelligent enough to be included in.