RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict

RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 6:37:29 PM)
FR Perfectly legal according to SYG. They really should have beat him to death before he got a chance to kill an innocent person. To see which fare and open minded person said this check post 128 in the original thread on this.

kdsub -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 7:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx We have just learned that this happened a good thirty yards off of his property that makes a big difference. According to the op it was closer to 130 yards. "After a land surveyor testified Wednesday that Crocker’s property boundary was 381 feet from the crime scene, more than the length of a football field, there was more focus on self-defense." No it made NO difference at all under Missouri law... Even if it had been on his property the law is the same... He was a murderer who THOUGHT he had the right to kill because of the stand your ground laws in other states. He tried to use that in his defense and the judge did not allow it. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Perfectly legal according to SYG. They really should have beat him to death before he got a chance to kill an innocent person. To see which fare and open minded person said this check post 128 in the original thread on this. Self defense is self defense or did their lack of fire arms change your opinion on that?

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. The other thing you do is declare anything you don't like to be a lie, which , ironically, a lie. Was the murderer convicted of manslaughter? Was he even offered manslaughter as an option at trial? Did the jury even deliberate long enough to need a meal break? A There were facts, particularly location, not available early. Every detail needed to know he was a murderer was known on the first day. quote: B I have not in any way described this as a miscarriage of justice. You argued that he should be convicted of at most manslaughter which meant you thought there were mitigating factors despite his confession that there were none. quote: C I never said he was innocent you repeatedly expressed your belief that there were mitigating factors in his defense up to and including self defense which would have made him innocent. quote: D the only place you can be seen as winning a victory here is in that vast wasteland known as your mind. the murderer is guilty of murder and will never see the light of day again. That is definitely a victory for me and decent and sane people everywhere. That it isn't one for you is sad and somewhat terrifying. You should get your priorities in order. Every gun nut does not need to be defended to the last breath.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:41:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the murderer is guilty of murder and will never see the light of day again. That is definitely a victory for me and decent and sane people everywhere. That it isn't one for you is sad and somewhat terrifying. You should get your priorities in order. Every gun nut does not need to be defended to the last breath. Of course the inverse to this is also true, not everyone who uses a gun to defend themselves is automatically a crazed, bigoted, murderer.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen IOW you declared Brave Sir Robin. I got it the first time. Maybe if you'd stay the fuck on topic, people would answer you but instead you sense you're having your ass kicked and try to change the topic./ Never changed topic. I long back proved Bama lied about his posts on the old thread. He couldn't defend those old posts so he trotted out a bunch of nonsense about Zimmerman. The other thing you do is declare anything you don't like to be a lie, which , ironically, a lie. Was the murderer convicted of manslaughter? Was he even offered manslaughter as an option at trial? Did the jury even deliberate long enough to need a meal break? A There were facts, particularly location, not available early. Every detail needed to know he was a murderer was known on the first day. quote: B I have not in any way described this as a miscarriage of justice. You argued that he should be convicted of at most manslaughter which meant you thought there were mitigating factors despite his confession that there were none. quote: C I never said he was innocent you repeatedly expressed your belief that there were mitigating factors in his defense up to and including self defense which would have made him innocent. quote: D the only place you can be seen as winning a victory here is in that vast wasteland known as your mind. the murderer is guilty of murder and will never see the light of day again. That is definitely a victory for me and decent and sane people everywhere. That it isn't one for you is sad and somewhat terrifying. You should get your priorities in order. Every gun nut does not need to be defended to the last breath. No I repeatedly said that manslaughter was a slam dunk. The change in the facts that we were given (being 100 yards off his property) made murder easier to prove. I did not say it was self defense, I said he would say it was self defense. I also pointed out that armed robbers frequently make the same claim. Time after time I said he needed to go to jail. Manslaughter would have been a life sentence at his age. I never said manslaughter at worst, I said manslaughter would be a slam dunk. If you can't see the difference you are dumber than I thought. If you were capable of seeing anything other than your preconceived notions you would know that claiming I defend every shooting is preposterous. And it was you who said that before anyone was hurt the floaters should have beaten him to death. You not only justify murder, you advocate it if the victim has a gun. That makes you the nut.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/18/2014 8:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the murderer is guilty of murder and will never see the light of day again. That is definitely a victory for me and decent and sane people everywhere. That it isn't one for you is sad and somewhat terrifying. You should get your priorities in order. Every gun nut does not need to be defended to the last breath. Of course the inverse to this is also true, not everyone who uses a gun to defend themselves is automatically a crazed, bigoted, murderer. They are in kendoms mind.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 2:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No I repeatedly said that manslaughter was a slam dunk. The change in the facts that we were given (being 100 yards off his property) made murder easier to prove. nothing about the location made it any more murder. You clearly do not have any idea what are the mitigating circumstances that would change murder to manslaughter. quote: I did not say it was self defense, I said he would say it was self defense. I also pointed out that armed robbers frequently make the same claim. The only way you could argue for manslaughter would be to say there was some mitigating circumstance such as he was defending himself, he wasn't, so you had to be making some claim and self defense is the only one he made. quote: Time after time I said he needed to go to jail. Manslaughter would have been a life sentence at his age. I never said manslaughter at worst, I said manslaughter would be a slam dunk. And the absolute wrong charge and sentence. quote: If you can't see the difference you are dumber than I thought. If you were capable of seeing anything other than your preconceived notions you would know that claiming I defend every shooting is preposterous. I, like the police, prosecutor, judge and jury in this case see this as a clear cut case of 2nd degree murder not manslaughter with no doubt, he did confess after all. And you have never yet failed to defend a murderer with a gun as long as it was a white person with a gun. Crazy fucker kills an innocent floater and you defend the guy. Dumbass guy shoots an old man stumbling around in the dark and you defend the guy. It is stunning quote: And it was you who said that before anyone was hurt the floaters should have beaten him to death. You not only justify murder, you advocate it if the victim has a gun. That makes you the nut. The guy was waving a gun around, shouting crazy shit, and shooting at them. Of course they were justified in taking defensive action. What crazy fucking planet are you living on that they aren't? It just goes to show your crazy bias in favor of the guys with guns. He'd already committed several felonies by that point, you do understand that right? Does assault with a deadly weapon mean anything to you?

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 5:16:44 PM)
Crazy fucker kills an innocent floater and you defend the guy I realize that this is beyond your comprehension but calling for him to be locked up for the rest of his life isn't defending the guy. And I never called it self defense. Repeat the lie as many times as you want it will not make it true.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 5:21:03 PM)
The guy was waving a gun around, shouting crazy shit, and shooting at them. Of course they were justified in taking defensive action. What crazy fucking planet are you living on that they aren't? It just goes to show your crazy bias in favor of the guys with guns. He'd already committed several felonies by that point, you do understand that right? Does assault with a deadly weapon mean anything to you? You idiot all that would have done was increased the body count or getting the shooting done earlier, but you can't see that, all you can see is sticking it to anyone with a gun.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 5:23:58 PM)
Dumbass guy shoots an old man stumbling around in the dark and you defend the guy. It is stunning You mean were I like the judge, the chief of police, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wife said it was self defense? Trying to derail again I see.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 6:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The guy was waving a gun around, shouting crazy shit, and shooting at them. Of course they were justified in taking defensive action. What crazy fucking planet are you living on that they aren't? It just goes to show your crazy bias in favor of the guys with guns. He'd already committed several felonies by that point, you do understand that right? Does assault with a deadly weapon mean anything to you? You idiot all that would have done was increased the body count or getting the shooting done earlier, but you can't see that, all you can see is sticking it to anyone with a gun. Would they or would they not have been justified in taking defensive action? Answer the question. Put a gun in one of their hands and tell me if he would have been justified in shooting. Then take the gun away and tell me if that changes anything. Why or why not. The simple fact is they were in a classic self defense situation. A real self defense situation not the bullshit ones you defend. If they had acted the man who is now dead might not be which is the whole point of self defense.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 6:24:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Dumbass guy shoots an old man stumbling around in the dark and you defend the guy. It is stunning You mean were I like the judge, the chief of police, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wife said it was self defense? Trying to derail again I see. No. Just reminding you of another time you rushed to the defense of another idiot with a gun. It is something of a pattern.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 6:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Dumbass guy shoots an old man stumbling around in the dark and you defend the guy. It is stunning You mean were I like the judge, the chief of police, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wife said it was self defense? Trying to derail again I see. No. Just reminding you of another time you rushed to the defense of another idiot with a gun. It is something of a pattern. The cops and DA agreed with me on that one but no you know better than anyone if they have a gun they are guilty. On this case you also forget that just as I said in the original thread we didn't have all the facts. Two very important facts turn out to be different than what we had at that time. A It wasn't on his property or even along the property line it was 100 yds away that changes things a lot. B Some on here have stated that eye witnesses say the floaters did not have rocks that changes things a lot C The jury decided on the actual complete facts, not the partial and inaccurate ones we had to work with. D The fact that the jury decided based on a much different situation that the one we thought we were discussion means that stances taken at that time are based on bad info. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REMIND YOU THAT I NEVER SAID HE WAS INNOCENT AND THAT I POINTED OUT THAT I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS SEVERAL TIMES. Don't like to shout but you can't seem to hear a normal voice.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 8:13:09 PM)
I've told you several times, location doesn't change a thing and you have repeatedly stated you believed there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability which simply is not true.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 8:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I've told you several times, location doesn't change a thing and you have repeatedly stated you believed there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability which simply is not true. No I said that there were mitigating circumstances that a good lawyer could use to muddy the waters. Are you incapable of comprehending the difference? (rhetorical question obviously you are) I never said he had anything approaching a legitimate self defense case. I consistently said he should go to jail. I also said there was a very good chance we didn't have all the facts, clearly I was right. You have routinely made it clear that unless your bleeding there is no such thing as self defense. Yes the location removed one of those details. If as stated earlier in this thread they were not threatening with rocks that removes the other. Get this through your head, the fact that you say that the difference between being on or in part on his property and being 100 yards off of it means nothing does not make it a fact.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 9:27:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I've told you several times, location doesn't change a thing and you have repeatedly stated you believed there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability which simply is not true. No I said that there were mitigating circumstances that a good lawyer could use to muddy the waters. So name one. Just one.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/19/2014 9:54:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I've told you several times, location doesn't change a thing and you have repeatedly stated you believed there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability which simply is not true. No I said that there were mitigating circumstances that a good lawyer could use to muddy the waters. So name one. Just one. We have gone over them. On his property on right along the line. Them having rocks which whether you like it or not are weapons. Both of these would have allowed a good lawyer to raise doubts. Both were removed by the correct information when it came out. And don't give me any crap about location doesn't matter. The Rodriquerz case in Houston revolved on exactly that point. He left the immediate area of his home, when down the street and created the situation. Before you go bananas again remember I said that the fact Cocker went to his car and returned with the gun made him guilty of AT LEAST (not at worst) manslaughter. How you can ask a question like this and claim to know all about the first thread shows serious selective memory on your part. Keep in mind also that at that time I stated repeatedly that none of this made him innocent. With it being on the edge or near his property and armed with rocks a lawyer can confuse the Jury ala OJ without them he can't. To follow your logic since I have explained this to you several times you have to accept it as fact.

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/20/2014 5:45:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I've told you several times, location doesn't change a thing and you have repeatedly stated you believed there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability which simply is not true. No I said that there were mitigating circumstances that a good lawyer could use to muddy the waters. So name one. Just one. We have gone over them. On his property on right along the line. Them having rocks which whether you like it or not are weapons. Both of these would have allowed a good lawyer to raise doubts. Both were removed by the correct information when it came out. And don't give me any crap about location doesn't matter. The Rodriquerz case in Houston revolved on exactly that point. He left the immediate area of his home, when down the street and created the situation. Before you go bananas again remember I said that the fact Cocker went to his car and returned with the gun made him guilty of AT LEAST (not at worst) manslaughter. How you can ask a question like this and claim to know all about the first thread shows serious selective memory on your part. Keep in mind also that at that time I stated repeatedly that none of this made him innocent. With it being on the edge or near his property and armed with rocks a lawyer can confuse the Jury ala OJ without them he can't. To follow your logic since I have explained this to you several times you have to accept it as fact. So like I wrote up thread you have not the slightest clue what is the difference between a manslaughter and murder charge. Being on his own property was never mitigation and defending himself was self defense which would have been full on innocence. So manslaughter was never ever possible. As a matter of fact in Missouri only one mitigation is available to make 2nd degree murder manslaughter. By law that is sudden passion. What that means is left undefined but I think we can both agree that leaving the scene of the altercation getting his gun and returning fails to qualify. So you have been arguing from ignorance this whole time. Now who precisely is stupid you fucking moronic jackass? Why didn't you at least have the common sense to Google what the fuck manslaughter was at some point? Are you so fucking stupid you can't figure out that I was playing you for a fool this whole time? Maybe in the future you will keep in mind that hurling insults at your betters might not be such a good idea.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/20/2014 9:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The guy was waving a gun around, shouting crazy shit, and shooting at them. Of course they were justified in taking defensive action. What crazy fucking planet are you living on that they aren't? It just goes to show your crazy bias in favor of the guys with guns. He'd already committed several felonies by that point, you do understand that right? Does assault with a deadly weapon mean anything to you? You idiot all that would have done was increased the body count or getting the shooting done earlier, but you can't see that, all you can see is sticking it to anyone with a gun. Would they or would they not have been justified in taking defensive action? Answer the question. Put a gun in one of their hands and tell me if he would have been justified in shooting. Then take the gun away and tell me if that changes anything. Why or why not. The simple fact is they were in a classic self defense situation. A real self defense situation not the bullshit ones you defend. If they had acted the man who is now dead might not be which is the whole point of self defense. Lets pretend for a moment that your brilliant human wave attack only changes the result from one dead floater to one dead man with a gun. There would be a point well before death when all semblance of a threat would disappear. Thus instead of one dead and one in prison we would have at least one dead and three or four in prison. You don't start a gunfight when you don't have a gun.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125