because in the end the last guy can not defend the other guy, because he is not him. A 3rd party can not defend a 1st party, even if he knows the truth.
To say that any of those people are "third party" suggests that person didn't personally see what happend...but was told by an actual witness of the action (kicking dogs) and now has second-hand knowledge. Such a person would find it difficult to debate an individual that actually saw it happen.
But that's not what you've described. What youve described has no "third party". You have one person carrying out an action and then you got 3 different eye-witness accounts from 3 different angles. The 3rd person you describe doesn't have to "defend" anyone...they just have to retell what they saw and what they know about the ranger. At that point, that first witness knows what they saw and now they know, second-hand, what the 3rd witness saw and what they personally know of the ranger.
If that first witness has any degree of intelligence they'll realize that what they saw (man kicking dogs) is still factual...what might be wrong is their interpretation of that action. If they're intelligent, there's no reason to conclude they cant be swayed by what the third witnessed and reported to them.
f they're intelligent, there's no reason to conclude they cant be swayed by what the third witnessed and reported to them.
In reality, this is not how people work. And this THE PROBLEM.
(post is archived)