quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

No one else it. The bolded word matter you idiot. If you read the witness statements no one but Johnson and Wilson claim to have seen the fight at the SUV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

No one else it. The bolded word matter you idiot. If you read the witness statements no one but Johnson and Wilson claim to have seen the fight at the SUV.

DUDE why do you even try

just answer his stupid question, why hasn't Johnson been charged with murder, well DUHHH because no one, including Wilson, has claimed he was anything but a BYSTANDER for the WHOLE EVENT...
you don't charge BYSTANDERS with murder

and he calls ME STUPID!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

No one else it. The bolded word matter you idiot. If you read the witness statements no one but Johnson and Wilson claim to have seen the fight at the SUV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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.

It sounds like he isn't to fond of the ones still alive either. Now it seems he is trying to say Johnson was guilty of assault for walking down the street next to Brown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

No one else it. The bolded word matter you idiot. If you read the witness statements no one but Johnson and Wilson claim to have seen the fight at the SUV.

Plenty of proof the altercation happened, if your wonderful witnesses didn't see that then they have no idea what happened.
And you know full well that Wilson never claimed that Johnson attacked him.
By your standard every time a cop has a physical confrontation a half dozen people can be charged since there are virtually always people encouraging the guy who assaults them.
You always do this.
When your position has been destroyed and the courts have ruled the other way you insult people and fixate on a silly argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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.

It sounds like he isn't to fond of the ones still alive either. Now it seems he is trying to say Johnson was guilty of assault for walking down the street next to Brown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

I said statutes and legal precedent, now who is not reading?

I know precisely what I am talking about. What you originally said was what precipitated my responses. You have not proved your claim by any means whatsoever. All you did is cite something that did not apply.

If there were a trial, which there will not be, if Wilson took the stand and presented his claim of assault, it would be admissible. Even if he did not take the stand, the claim and evidence prove an altercation took place within the police car, which is relevant and admissible.

I'm done here.

The why hasn't Johnson been charged with felony murder? Simply because Wilson cannot make the complaint and no one else saw the altercation.

If no one saw the altercation then all those witnesses you were talking about are liars.

No one else it. The bolded word matter you idiot. If you read the witness statements no one but Johnson and Wilson claim to have seen the fight at the SUV.

Plenty of proof the altercation happened, if your wonderful witnesses didn't see that then they have no idea what happened.
And you know full well that Wilson never claimed that Johnson attacked him.
By your standard every time a cop has a physical confrontation a half dozen people can be charged since there are virtually always people encouraging the guy who assaults them.
You always do this.
When your position has been destroyed and the courts have ruled the other way you insult people and fixate on a silly argument.

No, you fucking idiot. It is the legal standard that has existed for 600 years. Which if you weren't lying about knowing what Wilson testified you'd know. Do you have any idea how many people are any prison for felony murder in the US right now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I liked the new title. Catchy, and descriptive.

For this being an "unmoderated" section, she sure does seem to butt in a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I liked the new title. Catchy, and descriptive.

For this being an "unmoderated" section, she sure does seem to butt in a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

You might want to take a look at those guidelines. It might be beneficial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

You might want to take a look at those guidelines. It might be beneficial.

I read them the first day they were painted up there on the roof of the barn, 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

You might want to take a look at those guidelines. It might be beneficial.

I read them the first day they were painted up there on the roof of the barn, 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

You all can see where most wish to post. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

You might want to take a look at those guidelines. It might be beneficial.

I read them the first day they were painted up there on the roof of the barn, 3.

Then you would know that this section has some moderation, doesn't allow changing the thread title, another member's nickname or post, etc. I was doing my job by coming to edit something. If you think that I butt in too often, you can always email me and bring it to my attention. Despite what might be said, I do care about the members and how they feel about things. I may or may not be able to do something about it, but surely, nothing will be done if it isn't discussed.

I asked for the Feisty sections so that members could get feisty without being moderated or banned and so that they had a choice to post about politics and religion in a mild moderation forum or moderated forum called Current Affairs.

You all can see where most wish to post. [:D]