I assume for the sake of the argument, that for some reason the injured party isn't available as proof that someone was really injured. In that circumstance, I would not convict. I need more than a story that something happened before I'll vote to deprive you of your freedom.
If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?
If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.