Reply #7: and i was proven RIGHT ha ha

[sgxnk]

i said (despite some silly commentary to the opposing view) that merely because the article said he had not been charged, this was NOT evidence that he WOULD not be charged

but as soon as the article came out, every donk was kneejerking an automatic "they're giving him special treatment because he's a cop", various racial identity excuses e.g. if he was black they would have charged him, etc etc.

this shows, yet again, the need to read for actual (lord forbid) CONTENT before kneejerkign

ideology should always take a backseat to facts

and there were NO facts in evidence to say he would not be charged

only that he hadn't been charged YET

as i tried to explain

not that i'm gloating

(rolls eyes)