RE: Rioting is the answer

RE: Rioting is the answer (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 11:06:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you? Since Johnson was not involved in the assault on Wilson he could not be charged with his murder. That would have only come into play if Brown had been killed during the strong armed robbery. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely implied that I don't know what felony murder is.

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 12:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It's not a statute but a series of court cases but here is the principle laid out. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/300/334.html So, who exactly was the accomplice here? Who is the witness that is said to be an accomplice? And, where in this document does it say anything about a statement by a defendant about an assault being inadmissible? This section of law deals with a witness that could be an accomplice, the admissibility of their testimony and validity of such testimony.

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 1:17:18 PM)
Ken, Let's just clarify something here so we are on the same page: Wilson, the police officer that shot and killed Michael Brown (victim) is the "defendant" in your example. Wilson (defendant) claimed there was a struggle with Brown (victim) that took place in the police car, which was confirmed by the physical evidence, this is the assault that you claim is inadmissible. What accomplice am I missing? Are you saying that Wilson (defendant) had an accomplice, or a witness to the assault who was an accomplice? Or are you saying Brown (victim) had a witness to the assault on Wilson (defendant) and that that witness was an accomplice?

BitYakin -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 1:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge Ken, Let's just clarify something here so we are on the same page: Wilson, the police officer that shot and killed Michael Brown (victim) is the "defendant" in your example. Wilson (defendant) claimed there was a struggle with Brown (victim) that took place in the police car, which was confirmed by the physical evidence, this is the assault that you claim is inadmissible. What accomplice am I missing? Are you saying that Wilson (defendant) had an accomplice, or a witness to the assault who was an accomplice? Or are you saying Brown (victim) had a witness to the assault on Wilson (defendant) and that that witness was an accomplice? he doesn't know, and he'll just say you must be to "STOOPID" to get it

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 2:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you? Since Johnson was not involved in the assault on Wilson he could not be charged with his murder. That would have only come into play if Brown had been killed during the strong armed robbery. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely implied that I don't know what felony murder is. So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 2:39:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It's not a statute but a series of court cases but here is the principle laid out. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/300/334.html So, who exactly was the accomplice here? Who is the witness that is said to be an accomplice? And, where in this document does it say anything about a statement by a defendant about an assault being inadmissible? This section of law deals with a witness that could be an accomplice, the admissibility of their testimony and validity of such testimony. I wrote that the principle is the same not that it was exactly what was being described. Do you read what I wrote?

BitYakin -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 2:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you? Since Johnson was not involved in the assault on Wilson he could not be charged with his murder. That would have only come into play if Brown had been killed during the strong armed robbery. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely implied that I don't know what felony murder is. So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that. just curious, did ANYONE, besides DK see where Bama agreed Wilson was lying in anything he wrote?

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 2:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that. Why do you hate the black community so much, Ken? What could set your racism so deep?

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 2:54:15 PM)
FR Just a note to the fuckwits playing this game - when you take the most ridiculous, least credible, version of events, and make that the centerpiece of discussion, it might provide a way to pass another meaningless day, but it only hurts the next victim of the real problem.

thishereboi -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge Ken, Let's just clarify something here so we are on the same page: Wilson, the police officer that shot and killed Michael Brown (victim) is the "defendant" in your example. Wilson (defendant) claimed there was a struggle with Brown (victim) that took place in the police car, which was confirmed by the physical evidence, this is the assault that you claim is inadmissible. What accomplice am I missing? Are you saying that Wilson (defendant) had an accomplice, or a witness to the assault who was an accomplice? Or are you saying Brown (victim) had a witness to the assault on Wilson (defendant) and that that witness was an accomplice? he doesn't know, and he'll just say you must be to "STOOPID" to get it Not those exact words but yea that is exactly what he did. Although I have to admit I didn't expect him to actually answer the questions.

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I wrote that the principle is the same not that it was exactly what was being described. Do you read what I wrote? I read every single word. Every. Word. I've also read every word of your link that you gave me. Are you allergic to answering my questions, or do you just have a monopoly on that? We can review what you wrote if you like... I'm good like that. A principle in law either applies or it does not. What you linked does not apply. Find something that does apply. While you are looking for it, how about you answer a few of my questions, would you? I mean, you wouldn't want to have a one sided conversation... would you? You can't win this. As much as I would like to badger you relentlessly over this, you cannot win. You cannot simply force the law to fit your agenda. No matter what you do, your assertion does not apply in a court of law. Oh, by the way, just in case you were interested, I discussed your point with a lawyer. He had a hearty laugh over it.

BitYakin -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Just a note to the fuckwits playing this game - when you take the most ridiculous, least credible, version of events, and make that the centerpiece of discussion, it might provide a way to pass another meaningless day, but it only hurts the next victim of the real problem. you are 100% correct, its why I have all but stopped posting here, certain people will just reply, "yer STOOPID" so there I WIN! it's pointless to try to talk to people like that

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you? Since Johnson was not involved in the assault on Wilson he could not be charged with his murder. That would have only come into play if Brown had been killed during the strong armed robbery. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely implied that I don't know what felony murder is. So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that. There was never a claim that Johnson attacked Wilson, he was present, he shot his mouth off, but there has been no claim that he laid a hand on Wilson.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you? Since Johnson was not involved in the assault on Wilson he could not be charged with his murder. That would have only come into play if Brown had been killed during the strong armed robbery. There was nothing in my statement that even remotely implied that I don't know what felony murder is. So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that. There was never a claim that Johnson attacked Wilson, he was present, he shot his mouth off, but there has been no claim that he laid a hand on Wilson. There is a claim that he participated in the assault actually. Which if Wilson could testify would make Johnson subject to a felony murder charge. Notice that Johnson has spoken publicly about the incident on several occasions with a lawyer present. That's because the lawyer knows the prosecutor cannot bring charges.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 4:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I wrote that the principle is the same not that it was exactly what was being described. Do you read what I wrote? I read every single word. Every. Word. I've also read every word of your link that you gave me. Are you allergic to answering my questions, or do you just have a monopoly on that? We can review what you wrote if you like... I'm good like that. A principle in law either applies or it does not. What you linked does not apply. Find something that does apply. While you are looking for it, how about you answer a few of my questions, would you? I mean, you wouldn't want to have a one sided conversation... would you? You can't win this. As much as I would like to badger you relentlessly over this, you cannot win. You cannot simply force the law to fit your agenda. No matter what you do, your assertion does not apply in a court of law. Oh, by the way, just in case you were interested, I discussed your point with a lawyer. He had a hearty laugh over it. I did answer your question, several times in fact, and since my answers, including a link describing the principle in detail, does not satisfy you I have no idea what else to do. You even demanded statutes for things that are not and have never been ruled by statute but by appellate decisions. Which if you actually knew what you were talking about you would know.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 4:03:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you agree Wilson lied in his grand jury testimony and his statements. I'm glad we finally agree on that. Why do you hate the black community so much, Ken? What could set your racism so deep? WTF? Have you been drinking again? You really need some help.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 4:11:53 PM)
There is a claim that he participated in the assault actually. Which if Wilson could testify would make Johnson subject to a felony murder charge. Notice that Johnson has spoken publicly about the incident on several occasions with a lawyer present. That's because the lawyer knows the prosecutor cannot bring charges. Neither Wilson, not Johnson, or for that matter any serious source, have claimed that Johnson attacked Wilson. Johnson has made statements but if he said he attacked Wilson there would be no need for anyone else to say anything, you do know what a confession is don't you.

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 5:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Why do you hate the black community so much, Ken? What could set your racism so deep? WTF? Have you been drinking again? You really need some help. Don't try to make it about me, Ken. You are the racist asshole filling the pages with your little minstrel show game. I realize you are bored, and lonely, but quit attacking a community that could use some fucking understanding of the real issues that contributed to this death. You must really love dead black teenagers. Sick fucker.

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 5:18:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is a claim that he participated in the assault actually. Which if Wilson could testify would make Johnson subject to a felony murder charge. Notice that Johnson has spoken publicly about the incident on several occasions with a lawyer present. That's because the lawyer knows the prosecutor cannot bring charges. I caught an interview with Johnson on MSNBC (I was stuck home sick, and REALLY bored, ok?). He was saying he was waiting for someone to come stop the situation as it escalated. How pathetic. How do we even begin to repair that?

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 5:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is a claim that he participated in the assault actually. Which if Wilson could testify would make Johnson subject to a felony murder charge. Notice that Johnson has spoken publicly about the incident on several occasions with a lawyer present. That's because the lawyer knows the prosecutor cannot bring charges. I caught an interview with Johnson on MSNBC (I was stuck home sick, and REALLY bored, ok?). He was saying he was waiting for someone to come stop the situation as it escalated. How pathetic. How do we even begin to repair that? The post you quoted was by DK, not me. That said you are correct, it shows a total disconnect. As an interesting aside, I saw Dr Bader talking about his autopsy. You would never suspect that he an DK were talking about the same examination. Someone should contact Bader and tell him that he is misrepresenting his own report.

Page: << < prev 69 70 [71] 72 73 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625