Maybe you should learn the difference between a "witness" and an "eyewitness."
No kidding, tDarkness isn't even here!ahem. we are an internet board. we couldn't lynch anyone it we tried. its virtual. and its offensive to compare a bunch of hockey geeks shooting our mouths off with actual lynching.
Oh, so now the two ladies "witnessed" what went on in the showers? I see. Nothing delusional about that.
ahem. we are an internet board. we couldn't lynch anyone it we tried. its virtual. and its offensive to compare a bunch of hockey geeks shooting our mouths off with actual lynching.
So the cops are just supposed to assume that she'd invoke marital privilege without even bothering to talk to her? Maybe her conscience would have re-awakened at some point, too.Maybe you should learn about marital privelege and hearsay.
This has moved well past just past the single incident in the shower to what they observed and knew about Sandusky's behavior overall.
So the cops are just supposed to assume that she'd invoke marital privilege without even bothering to talk to her? Maybe her conscience would have re-awakened at some point, too.
This is exactly why the Libtard thread was created people, you really should be using it instead of arguing with Old Pio here.
I'm pretty sure he would have been the first to make the joke.No kidding, tDarkness isn't even here!
(ok, possibly inappropriate, but he's a good friend, and I know he'd laugh along with me)
I am, but it seems that you're having a hard time paying attention. Where did anyone say to cuff or taze their wives? We've just said "interview" for goodness sake.Yeah. Maybe they could taze her to loosen her up. Cuffs for sure. Are you people even paying attention to what you're saying? This is crazy.
You're entitled to your opinion. Am I entitled to mine?
I am, but it seems that you're having a hard time paying attention. Where did anyone say to cuff or taze their wives? We've just said "interview" for goodness sake.
Capital letters doesn't make your ignorant point any more compelling. Now listen carefully, I'm comparing attitudes.
Your opinion is that people who have expressed their belief that a still-alive Joe Paterno's actions (which are facts) are morally reprehensible while still technically within the letter of the law are on par with people who publically murdered black people out of sheer hatred.
Is that really something behind which you would stand? Really? You would trivialize disgusting hate crimes in that way? Are you Strom Thurmond Jr or something?
Nice to see people are keeping this thread focused where it should be.