AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
view the rest of the comments
Do we know that one wasn't offered? I was under the impression that Luigi has been pretty set on fighting the charges from the get go.
That could certainly be part of an answer to my question, were I to receive one.
"Why was Luigi not offered a plea deal?" implies that you know that he was not offered a plea deal. I asked, do we know that? It would be news to me.
A valid answer to my question could be "you're wrong, he was." I'm fully open to being wrong. The fact that nobody mentioned that he was is a strong indicator that he wasn't.
The burden of proof of your own statements does not fall upon others.
No, I'm asking a question.
Your question hangs upon, it requires, a condition which has not been proven true therefor you're claiming the condition is true by asserting the question is valid.
Suggested changes in how you present the statement:
"Was Luigi offered a plea deal? If not, why?"
The default is that a plea deal is not offered.
Please feel free to prove your assertion that he was given the option for a plea deal.