RE: Blood On Their Hands

RE: Blood On Their Hands (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 1:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Intent isn't necessary for a manslaughter conviction. And the felony was being a felon in possession of a firearm (not to be confused with a forearm, in case my phone keeps fucking with me). The proper way to try the case would have been to prove the gun charge first, then explain the death that resulted from that crime. Prosecution probably focused too much on trying to prove murder. it is for possession of a firearm. his claim was it wasnt intentional to possess or control, didnt know what it was that he picked up, and the jurys verdict seems to agree with that. Well then what the hell are we bitching about here? And where is ICE to deport him again? They convicted him of illegal possession.

BamaD -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 3:04:39 PM)
FR When it first happened he claimed he shoot at something other than her. Now he claims that the gun just went off all by it's self one of those guns that goes out and murders people.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 3:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You and I have no idea what evidence was presented to the jury...why do you presume their decision was politically influenced... you have no idea the political affiliations of the jurors? I don't even know the charge but it seems to me they were mandated to come back with a verdict only on the charges put before them. So it is not their fault if he was not convicted on other charges they were not asked to consider. If I were on that jury I would be very unhappy with my President that criticized our decision without knowing the evidence. Butch Actually, Butch, I'd ask you to speak for yourself. I've been following the case and I know a good portion of the evidence presented. Obviously, I wasn't in the courtroom, but I'm aware of the evidence of the gun (which I believe was never charged as theft, but should have been, based upon the BLM agent's account), I'm aware of the theory which the D.A. presented to the jury, even offering evidence that the ricochet wasn't off the ground, but off a cement "pillar" (vertical) on the pier. I'm also aware, as my post attempted to point out, that the (top) charges were: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. How even an *accidental* discharge when one is illegally in possession of a weapon (he was found guilty of that) doesn't add up to (at the very least) "involuntary manslaughter" is beyond me. It seems prêt-à-porté to me. Michael If you followed the case so closely, and the verdict, then you were aware that he was in fact, found guilty on the weapons charge. So your statement that he was found guilty of nothing was a lie, not just an error.

bounty44 -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 4:39:56 PM)
it would be good if people on the left really, seriously, learned what the word "lie" actually means. have lost track of how many times ive said that here; its almost an epidemic. in context, all Michael is talking about are the charges directly related to kate steinle's death. not guilty of 1st degree murder, not guilty of 2nd degree murder, not guilty of manslaughter. essentially, as far as he was concerned, and he elaborated this point later, not guilty of anything that mattered. the weapons charge and conviction is besides the point. he doesn't care about that, its not something he's commenting on. could he have spoken more clearly? probably; but even then there are other explanations for what/how we wrote than "lying." in the choice between the comrades willfully misunderstanding/not giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting their personal animosity run wild (liberals are soooo loving), or "he 'lied'"---im going with the former.

BoscoX -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 4:44:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it would be good if people on the left really, seriously, learned what the word "lie" actually means. have lost track of how many times ive said that here; its almost an epidemic. in context, all Michael is talking about are the charges directly related to kate steinle's death. not guilty of 1st degree murder, not guilty of 2nd degree murder, not guilty of manslaughter. essentially, as far as he was concerned, and he elaborated this point later, not guilty of anything that mattered. the weapons charge and conviction is besides the point. he doesn't care about that, its not something he's commenting on. could he have spoken more clearly? probably; but even then there are other explanations for what/how we wrote than "lying." in the choice between the comrades willfully misunderstanding/not giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting their personal animosity run wild (liberals are soooo loving), or "he 'lied'"---im going with the former. "Howlers"

Lucylastic -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 6:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it would be good if people on the left really, seriously, learned what the word "lie" actually means. have lost track of how many times ive said that here; its almost an epidemic. in context, all Michael is talking about are the charges directly related to kate steinle's death. not guilty of 1st degree murder, not guilty of 2nd degree murder, not guilty of manslaughter. essentially, as far as he was concerned, and he elaborated this point later, not guilty of anything that mattered. the weapons charge and conviction is besides the point. he doesn't care about that, its not something he's commenting on. could he have spoken more clearly? probably; but even then there are other explanations for what/how we wrote than "lying." in the choice between the comrades willfully misunderstanding/not giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting their personal animosity run wild (liberals are soooo loving), or "he 'lied'"---im going with the former. Of course you are, but you are the one who only discusses rw sources, so your thinking isnt important to anyone but you. maybe if people stopped lying it would help all around.

jlf1961 -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 7:12:58 PM)
Look, face it. The jury did not find evidence to support a guilty verdict on all but the weapons charge. And since it is up to the attorneys to present the their best case, it is clear the DA failed to prove his on the charges directly linked to the death. Now, since the jury could only come up with a verdict based on the cases presented, how the hell is it the fault of the jury IF the DA fucked up and lost the case? I love it when some one is acquitted and everyone blames the jury, who made their decision based on the evidence presented. Sorry, but in this situation, the DA on the case took a sure thing slam dunk and turned and scored the winning basket for the defense.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:01:17 PM)
Oooops! quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul If you followed the case so closely, and the verdict, then you were aware that he was in fact, found guilty on the weapons charge. So your statement that he was found guilty of nothing was a lie, not just an error. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 01 DEC 2017 11:18:46 Post#6 Yes. He murdered someone and was found guilty of "illegal possession of a weapon". Comparatively, that's nothing in my book, but I understand the mindset of protecting illegal pieces of shit at any cost. Carry on.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:15:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Oooops! quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul If you followed the case so closely, and the verdict, then you were aware that he was in fact, found guilty on the weapons charge. So your statement that he was found guilty of nothing was a lie, not just an error. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 01 DEC 2017 11:18:46 Post#6 Yes. He murdered someone and was found guilty of "illegal possession of a weapon". Comparatively, that's nothing in my book, but I understand the mindset of protecting illegal pieces of shit at any cost. Carry on. No oops. I knew that was there. The fact that you choose to characterize it as something else rather than admit that it was an intellectually dishonest statement doesn't make it an oops on my part. Just yours.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul No oops. I knew that was there. The fact that you choose to characterize it as something else rather than admit that it was an intellectually dishonest statement doesn't make it an oops on my part. Just yours. Whatever you say, you bastion of intellectual honesty, you. You know, I would think, sooner or later, you'd get tired of being wrong. Being wrong is okay. It happens to the best of us and even you, but being wrong while being so obnoxious? That's a whole 'nother level of stupid, but you've cleared the bar with room to spare.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, face it. The jury did not find evidence to support a guilty verdict on all but the weapons charge. And since it is up to the attorneys to present the their best case, it is clear the DA failed to prove his on the charges directly linked to the death. Now, since the jury could only come up with a verdict based on the cases presented, how the hell is it the fault of the jury IF the DA fucked up and lost the case? I love it when some one is acquitted and everyone blames the jury, who made their decision based on the evidence presented. Sorry, but in this situation, the DA on the case took a sure thing slam dunk and turned and scored the winning basket for the defense. jif, I know you know gun laws so, I'll try one more time with you: You admit he was found guilty on the illegal possession of a weapon charge, yes? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The jury did not find evidence to support a guilty verdict on all but the weapons charge. Okay. You agree that's a felony, right? Good. ANY time ANYone dies during the commission of a felony, manslaughter (at the very least) is appropriate and a done deal. Don't believe me? If you ask me to drive a get-away car for an armed robbery and you kill the person behind the counter, my skinny Irish ass is going to jail, also. Don't like that? Suppose you don't kill the guy and, while speeding away from the cops, I t-bone a car because I went through a red light. Guess what? Manslaughter, again. Once you have a predicate felony, ANY death that occurs (even if our counter person just died of a heart attack) is MANSLAUGHTER at the very least. Even if, as you say, the prosecutor fucked up, the DEFENDANT'S STORY was that the gun was in his possession, when it "accidentally" went off. in the process of him, committing a felony, someone died. Game, set, match. The jury or the judge (while charging the jury) fucked up.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul No oops. I knew that was there. The fact that you choose to characterize it as something else rather than admit that it was an intellectually dishonest statement doesn't make it an oops on my part. Just yours. Whatever you say, you bastion of intellectual honesty, you. You know, I would think, sooner or later, you'd get tired of being wrong. Being wrong is okay. It happens to the best of us and even you, but being wrong while being so obnoxious? That's a whole 'nother level of stupid, but you've cleared the bar with room to spare. Dude, I'm not the one knowingly making false statements on this thread.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Dude, I'm not the one knowingly making false statements on this thread. "Dude", huh? Okay, baby. You're wrong again, but let me help you: Nah. I refuse to repeat myself for the intellectual dishonest. I was going to give you credit for the "on this thread" part of you're post, but that's not even right. You're a liar who seems to enjoy lying about me, but those days are over.

jlf1961 -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:48:43 PM)
Uh, it still goes back to the case made by the DA. You are blasting the Jury, but bottom line, the DA dropped the ball. Just like the DA fucked up in the OJ case, the Casey Anthony case and god knows how many other fucked up verdicts that have come down. The points you raised should have been in the DA closing arguments. But hey, lets blame 12 people who's knowledge of the law probably stops at a traffic ticket, or since it was California, a pot charge. FYI, its shit like piss poor DA's and the rights of the accused over the victims that led me to leave law enforcement.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Uh, it still goes back to the case made by the DA. You are blasting the Jury, but bottom line, the DA dropped the ball. You missed the point. As soon as the defendant admitted to having the weapon and that it discharged while in his possession, the DA could have sat down and ate a ham sammich. I'm "blasting" either the jury for being a collection of dolts or the judge for not informing them of that little "hitch" in the law. THE DEFENDANT PROVED THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE, WHEN HE TOLD HIS STORY.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Dude, I'm not the one knowingly making false statements on this thread. "Dude", huh? Okay, baby. You're wrong again, but let me help you: Nah. I refuse to repeat myself for the intellectual dishonest. I was going to give you credit for the "on this thread" part of you're post, but that's not even right. You're a liar who seems to enjoy lying about me, but those days are over. Those days are over? Let me guess, you are going to threaten to sue me too, for "lying" about you? Whatever.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 8:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Those days are over? Let me guess, you are going to threaten to sue me too, for "lying" about you? Whatever. There you go again. One can't "threaten" to do something that's legal. But no, I am going to start keeping track of the lies you tell about me and throw them in your face, whenever you do. Let's start here. First you said: quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul If you followed the case so closely, and the verdict, then you were aware that he was in fact, found guilty on the weapons charge. So your statement that he was found guilty of nothing was a lie, not just an error. When I showed you: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 01 DEC 2017 11:18:46 Post#6 Yes. He murdered someone and was found guilty of "illegal possession of a weapon". Comparatively, that's nothing in my book, but I understand the mindset of protecting illegal pieces of shit at any cost. Carry on. You replied with: quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul No oops. I knew that was there ... So, you knew I'd clarified my position, but still tried to present what I'd typed as a lie. Intellectual dishonesty, indeed! EDIT: No. I have to change that. You have to have some intellect before you can be intellectually dishonest. So, you're just a liar.

servantforuse -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:20:58 PM)
You are right about the DA. Problem is, I'm guessing the DA is also a liberal that didn't give a rats ass if this person was convicted or not. I've been to San Fran a few times, and I'm glad I'm not living in that cesspool.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Those days are over? Let me guess, you are going to threaten to sue me too, for "lying" about you? Whatever. There you go again. One can't "threaten" to do something that's legal. Yeah, you've said that before. However, From OED Threaten 1State one's intention to take hostile action against (someone) in retribution for something done or not done. (with direct speech) ‘‘I might sue for damages,’ he threatened’ So yeah, there's that. For someone who claims to love the English language dearly, you seem to misuse it a lot. Wrong again. Must not feel good to be wrong so often. But whatever floats your boat, dude.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:57:09 PM)
Never mind. An ignorant liar is hardly worth my time. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Those days are over? Let me guess, you are going to threaten to sue me too, for "lying" about you? Whatever. There you go again. One can't "threaten" to do something that's legal. But no, I am going to start keeping track of the lies you tell about me and throw them in your face, whenever you do. Let's start here. First you said: quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul If you followed the case so closely, and the verdict, then you were aware that he was in fact, found guilty on the weapons charge. So your statement that he was found guilty of nothing was a lie, not just an error. When I showed you: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 01 DEC 2017 11:18:46 Post#6 Yes. He murdered someone and was found guilty of "illegal possession of a weapon". Comparatively, that's nothing in my book, but I understand the mindset of protecting illegal pieces of shit at any cost. Carry on. You replied with: quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul No oops. I knew that was there ... So, you knew I'd clarified my position, but still tried to present what I'd typed as a lie. Intellectual dishonesty, indeed! EDIT: No. I have to change that. You have to have some intellect before you can be intellectually dishonest. So, you're just a liar. "wayward"? More like "hole in your..."

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625