First, the person that makes the assertion has the burden of proof. You are asserting that Domo committed the crime of being an accomplice to an armed robbery. You have provided no evidence beyond conclusory statements and mere accusations. Therefore, your point is weak at best and simply wrong at worst. As such, I am not out of line that I expect you to provide a scintilla of evidence, which you cannot, to the board, not just me, about Domo's guilt.

Second, ad hominems are not good arguments. They are at best a grasping attempt at gaining credibility by knocking another down.

Third, stick to a single subject in the debate. I am not saying that everyone that has been let off is innocent. I am saying that Domo is innocent of the crime of armed robbery or being an accomplice because there was exculpatory evidence that clearly indicates otherwise. Your first statement in the body of your post is a goal post change. That, dear cougarrrs, is poor form.

Now then, turning to OJ and the analogy to Domo. This too is weak. For one very important reason. OJ was let off because of a lack of evidence. Domo was set free because of an exculpatory video. It was not just that a jury had reasonable doubt, but rather the prosecution saw the video and realized that the armed robber and Hatfield were not the same person. The identification was wrong and therefore it could not have been Hatfield. Further, there is no mens rea evidence to show that Hatfield supported the armed robbery in anyway that would lead to criminal liability. So yes, we are living on different planets. One lives where exculpatory evidence exists and the other lives in a world where conclusory statements and poor argumentation is the norm.