Are you "appealing to emotion" in this debate? Are you "poisoning the well?"
A little closer to the latter, but instead it's simply the scientific method of experimental validation, an old technique to limit, you know, lying.
- You made the claim that child kidnapping did not occur because he had been trespassed from the property.
- That claim is testable; babysit, tresspass the parents from the property, and tell the judge that you should be able to keep someone else's kid because you tresspassed their parents from your property.
- Let us know how that goes.
It is true that predicting that you'll, you know, wuss out the moment your lies have consequences in your life is, at the very least, inappropriate prediction of future events. On the other hand, I'm still pretty sure you won't do it; you have every chance to back up your words with experimental proof, but I'm guessing you just won't.
Lying ain't as easy when one has to pay a consequence.
No, I don't believe the victim was a child, sicut per legem (as per law).
So, you admit that your red herring has nothing to do with the qualifying felony of kidnapping a child.
So... why do you do it? Why'd you bring it up? Why is lies, distortion, and padded nonreply your go-to, sooo damn quickly?
Please note you have stopped the video at the time code I reported.
I reported, "... 6 to 8 feet" which is, as you say, just under three meters.
It should be noted that for the past 20 years, I have been an amateur forensic videographic/photographic analyst.
...then you'll note that you just claimed this man was ten to twelve meters tall.
I guessed because I could see no clear reason for the cops to be there confronting him.
That's exactly it : you made up a lie out of whole cloth, because you didn't like the data you had. Nor is it the only time you did so; you didn't want him to be the target of an attempted murder attempt in addition to this, so suddenly, as an "expert" you declare the man to be about ten to twelve meters tall. You didn't like that child kidnapping is a qualifying felony for felony murder, so you made up the notion that kidnapping is legal as long as you can get the kid on your property (but won't test the experiment and post the results). And so on.
That's not "friendly discussion," Gim, that's "malicious lying."
I really have no idea how you go from "I'll just lie!" to pretending to be innocent and reasonable. Apparently, this is in you. Congrats on fessing up to part of it, it's the most decent thing you've done. Hopefully, in the future, you can come to that before you just start lying for convenience.
The irony is that the one you've most wholly confessed to doesn't affect the case; neither the police (who are the ones who did so, in the news reports) nor the administrative staff can trespass a custodial parent until their child is also off the property, without committing the crime of kidnapping - a qualifying crime for felony murder in the state of Oregon.
Hope you can fix that in future discussions, Gim.