RE: The Bundys' are acquitted

RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 5:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You do know that one of the protesters was killed during the arrest don't you? LaVoy Finicum was shot while armed with a weapon and failing to respond to the directions of law enforcement. So let me get this straight. When an armed insurrectionist who has publicly stated that he'd rather die than go to jail, reaches for his Colt .45 and gets shot by police, that's bad.... but a black guy sitting alone in a car getting shot by police is perfectly reasonable? What's wrong with this picture? It wasn't armed insurrection, what was going on in Baltimore about the same time was much closer to armed insurrection and the same people who wanted to call in A10s and 105mm cannon thought that the should give the Baltimore rioters room to destroy, you are right, there is one set of rules for blacks and another for blacks but you have it backwards.

BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 6:04:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 That is very interesting! Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine? What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict? Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust. This was not jury nullification. Juror states the prosecution didn't prove the case well. Nothing about the law being unjust. http://koin.com/2016/10/28/bundy-juror-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent/ That is what the jury would say if they didn't like the law. The OJ prosecutors could have made the case.

Wayward5oul -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 6:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 That is very interesting! Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine? What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict? Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust. This was not jury nullification. Juror states the prosecution didn't prove the case well. Nothing about the law being unjust. http://koin.com/2016/10/28/bundy-juror-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent/ That is what the jury would say if they didn't like the law. The OJ prosecutors could have made the case. The juror was clear on what it was that steered their decision-explicit instructions from the judge about defining actions, and that they had to separate 'intent' from 'effect'. He had no problem stating what the exact issues were that were problematic, without having to mention anyone's attitude regarding the law. There is nothing at all to support the idea of jury nullification, except for wishful thinking. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/juror-explains-bundy-acquittals-arrogant-prosecutors-failed-to-prove-armed-takeover-was-conspiracy/ Juror 4 said the judge’s instructions prevented the jury from relying on the defendants’ “defining actions” to prove they had conspired to prevent federal employees from carrying out their official duties through intimidation, threat or force at the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve. “We were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,” the juror wrote. “It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.” Prosecutors had alleged that Ammon Bundy and another militant, Ryan Payne, had conspired to take over the federal facility as early as Nov. 5, but Juror 4 said he and other jury members were persuaded by defense arguments that they should not confuse the “effect” of the occupation from the “intent” of the occupiers.

BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 6:21:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 That is very interesting! Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine? What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict? Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust. This was not jury nullification. Juror states the prosecution didn't prove the case well. Nothing about the law being unjust. http://koin.com/2016/10/28/bundy-juror-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent/ That is what the jury would say if they didn't like the law. The OJ prosecutors could have made the case. The juror was clear on what it was that steered their decision-explicit instructions from the judge about defining actions, and that they had to separate 'intent' from 'effect'. He had no problem stating what the exact issues were that were problematic, without having to mention anyone's attitude regarding the law. There is nothing at all to support the idea of jury nullification, except for wishful thinking. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/juror-explains-bundy-acquittals-arrogant-prosecutors-failed-to-prove-armed-takeover-was-conspiracy/ Juror 4 said the judge’s instructions prevented the jury from relying on the defendants’ “defining actions” to prove they had conspired to prevent federal employees from carrying out their official duties through intimidation, threat or force at the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve. “We were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,” the juror wrote. “It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.” Prosecutors had alleged that Ammon Bundy and another militant, Ryan Payne, had conspired to take over the federal facility as early as Nov. 5, but Juror 4 said he and other jury members were persuaded by defense arguments that they should not confuse the “effect” of the occupation from the “intent” of the occupiers. OK

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 12:02:51 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am pretty sure you are familiar with the term "innocent till proved guilty". If one is found to be not guilty How are they not innocent. How exactly does innocent differ from not guilty? "Innocent until proven guilty" is an underlying principle. In legal terms "not guilty" means that reasonable doubt exists. This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and not a mater of fact. It is not a declaration of innocence, If one is innocent till proved guilty and one is not proved guilty then one is innocent. Neither english nor logic seem to be your long suit. it is simply an assertion that the prosecution has not proven guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". No dumbass it means the accused is innocent, since he/she was innocent till proved guilty and since he/she was not proved guilty they remain innocent. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Curmudgeonly1 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 4:43:34 AM)
A finding of 'not guilty' is NOT a finding of innocence. People are found not guilty for a host of reasons. They may or may not be innocent of the crime with which they were charged. All a not guilty finding means is that the prosecution has not satisfactorily made out its case and the accused is entitled to be treated in law as though they were innocent in fact whether or not that is the case. [sm=ballchain.gif]

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 5:12:37 AM)
ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1 A finding of 'not guilty' is NOT a finding of innocence. In amerika one is innocent till proved guilty. If you are proved guilty you are innocent. Maybe you should consult a fifth grade english teacher to help yu with the grammar. People are found not guilty for a host of reasons. They may or may not be innocent of the crime with which they were charged. How do you "know" this? All a not guilty finding means is that the prosecution has not satisfactorily made out its case and the accused is entitled to be treated in law as though they were innocent in fact whether or not that is the case. While in conference with the fifth grade english teacher referenced above you might also run that piece of sophistry by them. You do understand that by this peurile line of logic you are guilty of the "rape of the sabine women" even though it cannot be proved.[8\|]

Curmudgeonly1 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 6:03:34 AM)
Thanks for playing, anyway. [sm=dunno.gif]

KenDckey -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 6:10:30 AM)
Guilty until proven innocent dates back to the Napoleonic Code and has some basis in common law. However, under our system a person is not guilty until proven so. I ask, how many of us have ever been accused of something that they did not do? Most probably none of us. However, how many of us were adjudged as innocent? probably none of us. We may have been proven not guilty, not not innocent. Since we haven't been proven innocent, then it follows under my perception of some comments that we must therefore be guilty, it just couldn't be proven. I will agree with most that some innocent are proven guilty and some guilty have been proven not guilty, but the charge itself doesn't make anyone guilty of anything.

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 6:11:42 AM)
ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1 Thanks for playing, anyway. Your "game" of guilty till proved innocent is fatuous and not worthy of my interest. My position and that of amerikan jurisprudence is that one is innocent till proved guilty. If not proved guilty then one remains innocent. That may be a difficult concept for you to grasp thus my admonition to seek a consultation with an english teacher.

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 6:17:24 AM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey Guilty until proven innocent dates back to the Napoleonic Code and has some basis in common law. However, under our system a person is not guilty until proven so. Cite please. I ask, how many of us have ever been accused of something that they did not do? Most probably none of us. probably none of us. We may have been proven not guilty, not not innocent. Since we haven't been proven innocent, then it follows under my perception of some comments that we must therefore be guilty, it just couldn't be proven. I will agree with most that some innocent are proven guilty and some guilty have been proven not guilty, but the charge itself doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. My "gobblydigook" to english translator is broke how about you try this again in comprehensible english?

KenDckey -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 6:49:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: KenDckey Guilty until proven innocent dates back to the Napoleonic Code and has some basis in common law. However, under our system a person is not guilty until proven so. Cite please. I ask, how many of us have ever been accused of something that they did not do? Most probably none of us. probably none of us. We may have been proven not guilty, not not innocent. Since we haven't been proven innocent, then it follows under my perception of some comments that we must therefore be guilty, it just couldn't be proven. I will agree with most that some innocent are proven guilty and some guilty have been proven not guilty, but the charge itself doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. My "gobblydigook" to english translator is broke how about you try this again in comprehensible english? The possibility of lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for its de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position.[9] However, the legal proceedings did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly required that the jury not betray the interests of the defendants and not ignore the means of defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code It is further explained in 1895 by the NY times http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A06E6DB133DE433A25757C1A9629C94649ED7CF

Awareness -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 10:41:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am pretty sure you are familiar with the term "innocent till proved guilty". If one is found to be not guilty How are they not innocent. How exactly does innocent differ from not guilty? "Innocent until proven guilty" is an underlying principle. In legal terms "not guilty" means that reasonable doubt exists. This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and not a mater of fact. It is not a declaration of innocence, If one is innocent till proved guilty and one is not proved guilty then one is innocent. Neither english nor logic seem to be your long suit. it is simply an assertion that the prosecution has not proven guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". No dumbass it means the accused is innocent, since he/she was innocent till proved guilty and since he/she was not proved guilty they remain innocent. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Not for the first time, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not my unsubstantiated opinion, IT IS THE LAW, you fucking moron. You are just a clueless old man frothing at the mouth, having no idea what he's talking about. Again - and not for the first time - shut up Arpig.

Curmudgeonly1 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 11:22:42 AM)
*IN LAW* you fucking moron. Not necessarily in fact. Everyone knows that Al Capone did some rather unpleasant stuff but all they ever got him for was a bit of tax evasion. I really do hope that your carers are able to continue to keep you safe from harming either yourself or others. It would be a terrible thing if you ever got out. [sm=annoyed.gif]

MercTech -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 11:30:11 AM)
Chicago BLM protest - huge amounts of property damage and injuries over an issue based on a falsehood. Protester Occupation of a welcome center at a national wildlife preserve in Oregon - No one hurt. No property damage. Grievance against BLM mismanagement of public lands and use of malicious prosecution to try and force people off leased BLM land brought to local public attention even if totally ignored by national media. Peaceful resolution of occupation of a building. Other than the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter sharing an acronym; I see nothing equating the two events.

WhoreMods -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 12:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Chicago BLM protest - huge amounts of property damage and injuries over an issue based on a falsehood. Protester Occupation of a welcome center at a national wildlife preserve in Oregon - No one hurt. No property damage. Cheapskate attention seeking twats more interested in trying to martyr themselves in front of the "left leaning" media than paying to graze their cattle. Bottle putting up when push comes to shove and run away. Other than the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter sharing an acronym; I see nothing equating the two events. FTFY

Termyn8or -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 4:09:20 PM)
"In amerika one is innocent till proved guilty. If you are proved guilty you are innocent. Maybe you should consult a fifth grade english teacher to help yu with the grammar. " You are one to talk eh ? You cannot spell fucking and ow it seems you cannot even spell you. You also don't seem to understand the concept of which you speak - innocent until proven guilty. No, that is not it, you are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. And the premise of the justice system in this country was that it was better to let ten guilty go free rather than to lock up one innocent. Look at what happened to OJ Simpson dick. He was acquitted in a reaql trial but that Jewish family he stupidly married into took him for ever dime he had. They even took his trophies. But the burden of proof is less. So if he was acquitte3d and is therefore innocent then why did he have to give those rats everything he owned ? I agree he is a total asshole but we are talking the legal process here, not his IQ. Nor yours because you would be quite embarrassed. Who the fuck else would kill his olady who was pretty much a Jew whore and fucked other guys and let them drive HIS cars all over the place ? Chris Rock had it pretty much on the head - "I'm not saying that he should've killed her, but I understand". He thought like a White Man when he did that. Watch what evidence you leave. And Chris Rock is Black. Did Jews or any other white skinned people riot in the streets when OJ Simpson was acquitted ? I didn't notice any and neither did any law enforcement agency in this country. You fucking know nothing. I have stole, ran a fencing operation, driven stolen cars FOR YEARS, and hurt people. I have not shot anyone but I am not saying I have not killed anyone. You don't see me in jail do you ? That is because I am smart and I do not get caught. Innocent in the eyes of the law is innocent in the eyes of the law. Come on and rape one of my little cousin in laws and leave no evidence, if they point the finger at you, you will find out how innocent my .38 finds you. And the ultrasickening liberals are out with this shit that Clinton was never convicted and in the same breath say Trump is a crook even though he has not been charged. And then we got that he has been in a bunch of bankruptcies, those are CORPORATE bankruptcies, only a few personal, and that was a popular tool for many a year, to the point they changed the laws. And if it is a liberal, they call it a liquidation, if other, they call it a failure. I know the guy is an asshole but still. Ad Cliven Bundy is going to get off. They have already had him in court so many times and lost it is not funny. Now they want to try him for garnering public support against their tyranny ? Like they think they own every fucking blade of grass ? Fuck them. And they broke the law anyway. No unreasonable bail. He HAS a shit ton of money, he OWNs land, he is not a flight risk but he sits in a jail cell. He is also innocent because he has not been proven guilty. T^T

bounty44 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 4:58:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1 A finding of 'not guilty' is NOT a finding of innocence. In amerika one is innocent till proved guilty. If you are proved guilty you are innocent. Maybe you should consult a fifth grade english teacher to help yu with the grammar. People are found not guilty for a host of reasons. They may or may not be innocent of the crime with which they were charged. How do you "know" this? All a not guilty finding means is that the prosecution has not satisfactorily made out its case and the accused is entitled to be treated in law as though they were innocent in fact whether or not that is the case. While in conference with the fifth grade english teacher referenced above you might also run that piece of sophistry by them. You do understand that by this peurile line of logic you are guilty of the "rape of the sabine women" even though it cannot be proved.[8\|] you have had three different people, awareness, curmudgeonly, termyn8, explain to you in plain English, how your view on the matter of guilt and innocence when it comes to jurisprudence is mistaken. having read their positions, I found they said the same things to you I would have said; so lets make that 4 people who have/would have "disabused you of your ignorance." time to practice this (the latter part especially): quote: If I disagree with another poster I will delineate [sic] my disagreement with validation from reputable sources. When proved wrong I admit it and thank the poster for disabusing me of my ignorance. I have been proved wrong in less than a half dozen cases with more than 20,000 post.

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 5:41:55 PM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey ORIGINAL: thompsonx Guilty until proven innocent dates back to the Napoleonic Code and has some basis in common law. However, under our system a person is not guilty until proven so. Cite please. I ask, how many of us have ever been accused of something that they did not do? Most probably none of us. probably none of us. We may have been proven not guilty, not not innocent. Since we haven't been proven innocent, then it follows under my perception of some comments that we must therefore be guilty, it just couldn't be proven. I will agree with most that some innocent are proven guilty and some guilty have been proven not guilty, but the charge itself doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. My "gobblydigook" to english translator is broke how about you try this again in comprehensible english? The possibility of lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for its de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position.[9] However, the legal proceedings did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly required that the jury not betray the interests of the defendants and not ignore the means of defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code It is further explained in 1895 by the NY times http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A06E6DB133DE433A25757C1A9629C94649ED7CF We live in amerika kenny. No one gives a shit about the napolianic code. However, under our system a person is not guilty until proven so. Cite please

thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/30/2016 5:55:27 PM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am pretty sure you are familiar with the term "innocent till proved guilty". If one is found to be not guilty How are they not innocent. How exactly does innocent differ from not guilty? "Innocent until proven guilty" is an underlying principle. In legal terms "not guilty" means that reasonable doubt exists. This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and not a mater of fact. It is not a declaration of innocence, If one is innocent till proved guilty and one is not proved guilty then one is innocent. Neither english nor logic seem to be your long suit. it is simply an assertion that the prosecution has not proven guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". No dumbass it means the accused is innocent, since he/she was innocent till proved guilty and since he/she was not proved guilty they remain innocent. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Not for the first time, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not my unsubstantiated opinion, IT IS THE LAW, you fucking moron. The law is that you are innocent till proved guilty "you phoquing moron" You are just a clueless old man frothing at the mouth, having no idea what he's talking about. I know that in amerika one is innocent till proved guilty and that you have your head up your ass. Again - and not for the first time - shut up Arpig. Your mom will be home late tonight, she ask me to tell you to clean that shit pit you call a bed room and to take the trash out.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875