If your first paragraph is serious, you’re an extremely dumb person.

All he’s saying is that it could have come from something else that isn’t blood or sweat, and suggesting that someone else could have planted it. I mean, yes, if you believe that ALL evidence was planted, you obviously won’t find it convincing.

So, if Avery’s DNA was truly under the hood, and they have evidence the battery was pulled out, you’d still be convinced of his innocence?

The sexting scandal didn’t just come out. He’s reacting to the documentary.

I think that Kratz is a slimeball, but I can’t really think of much off the top of my head that points to his stupidity or incompetence. If anything, his competence was on full display. And I say this as someone who thinks Avery should have been found not guilty.

Man, some people seem so emotionally invested in Avery’s innocence. Not just the fact that he should have been found not guilty (which I believe), but rather that he’s completely innocent. It’s a little baffling.

For future reference: I mean exactly what I fucking type, and you should read better. The only reason I have to keep clarifying is others continued to be intellectually dishonest. If everyone got his point, they shouldn’t have continued to misunderstand it. Just disagree with the actual point he made.

And?

Is it racist to point out that Kendall Marshall’s biggest problem is that his game is too much like an nonathletic white guy’s, but one who also can’t shoot?

Correct, I’m clarifying *his* point, and clearly said, “I’m not saying he’s right.”

Uhhh, no I didn’t. I’m clarifying what HE said.

Sure, for any random man, that last sentence is obviously true, and we’re in agreement. But in my #2 above, I’m specifically referring to an actual public accusation without a rape.

1. I wasn’t defending the guy, or supporting his point, only clarifying that he wasn’t misunderstanding ‘due process.’

I never said he couldn’t defend himself.

Correct, and it’s the person who is intentionally misunderstanding the point because he wants to lecture people, despite the fact that everyone understands fully what due process is.

This response doesn’t even make sense, as I’ve never used the term in a non-legal sense. I only claimed that people do, and they can use it that way while fully understanding that their constitutional rights aren’t being violated.

I’ve not said anything the appropriateness of the term. My point, from the very beginning and without wavering, is that the comedian is not implying that his constitutional rights have been violated, and ‘due process’ is often used as shorthand for a process to defend yourself. No one has said that due process…

Your point about double standards is obvious, and good, but I think the mistake is that we should treat these people as serious, as opposed to attempting combat the racism inherent in calling any POC a ‘terrorist’ or ‘thug.’

I like everything you wrote here.

I never said she did anything wrong.