Pardons, Commutations and Dropped Prosecutions Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 213
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
BlooVooDoo said:
That’s commentary by someone whose opinion isn’t relevant. Once KSP forensics said the evidence was inconclusive, there is no proof.
Click to expand...

My article is more recent than yours and states that the report conclusively found that Taylor's boyfriend, who admitted to shooting at the police, shot the police officer. Not really a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the dude who fired at the police hit one of them.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Who is this Daniel Cameron guy? Oh, that's right, he's an experienced attorney. Seems like he has undergone a lot of training in the law.
Click to expand...
Cameron was running for higher office as a black man in one of the most racist states in the country. As I said: he was a corrupt POS. Not that he didn't know the law.
 
superrific said:
You have destroyed your reputation. First, it does not speak to the flimsiness of the case at all. The conviction standard is reasonable doubt. So every single jury could have thought he was at least 90% likely to be guilty, but if one jury thought it was less than 98%, it would have acquitted. That says nothing about his guilt. Nothing at all.

No one is hurt is the weirdest expression of racism I've seen in a while. Yeah, nobody was hurt except the black woman who died. Sure.

Suppose three gangsters open fire in a drive-by. Should only the one whose bullet actually hit be liable? The others should get off because their bullets -- intended to hit people -- only hit dry wall? I mean, this is the stupidest shit around.

Is attempted murder a crime? Should it be? Explain yourself.
Click to expand...

Super, you are supposed to be an attorney. The details matter. Can you please tell us all which person this particular officer hurt when he returned fire? Not understanding an argument and then shouting "racism" to cover your tracks isn't a good look.
 
superrific said:
Cameron was running for higher office as a black man in one of the most racist states in the country. As I said: he was a corrupt POS. Not that he didn't know the law.
Click to expand...

We can both agree that he knows the law, then, as is evident by his decision not to bring charges against officers that returned fire after being fired upon.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Super, you are supposed to be an attorney. The details matter. Can you please tell us all which person this particular officer hurt when he returned fire? Not understanding an argument and then shouting "racism" to cover your tracks isn't a good look.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me which person Kathy Boudin killed in the Brinks Armored Truck incident? She got life in prison. She didn't fire a shot.

What I am telling you is that the fact that his shots missed is not relevant. Because it is not relevant to the charge. I understand your argument just fine. There is no universe in which you would advance a legal argument I can't understand. Good lord, man. The problem isn't my understanding.

Answer the question: should attempted murder be a crime? You're not answering because you know this fatally undermines your argument here and you don't want to admit it.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
We can both agree that he knows the law, then, as is evident by his decision not to bring charges against officers that returned fire after being fired upon.
Click to expand...
WTF is wrong with you? Did you hit your head last night?

Daniel Cameron didn't fail to bring charges because he didn't know the law. He failed to bring charges because he was running for governor in Kentucky. It's similar to the reason that Clinton flew back to Arkansas to observe the death penalty for Ricky Ray Rector, if I remember the name correctly.
 
superrific said:
Can you tell me which person Kathy Boudin killed in the Brinks Armored Truck incident? She got life in prison. She didn't fire a shot.

What I am telling you is that the fact that his shots missed is not relevant. Because it is not relevant to the charge. I understand your argument just fine. There is no universe in which you would advance a legal argument I can't understand. Good lord, man. The problem isn't my understanding.

Answer the question: should attempted murder be a crime? You're not answering because you know this fatally undermines your argument here and you don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...

Returning fire after being fired upon isn't attempted murder, as is evident by the fact that the only cop charged who opened fire that night was the one who only hit drywall.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Returning fire after being fired upon isn't attempted murder
Click to expand...
But the fact that attempted murder is a crime punishable by life completely undercuts your contention that somehow he should get off just because he missed.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any further. It's demeaning. Watching grass grow would be more productive than talking to a mook who is completely ignorant but thinks that somehow he's wonderfully informed.
 
superrific said:
But the fact that attempted murder is a crime punishable by life completely undercuts your contention that somehow he should get off just because he missed.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any further. It's demeaning. Watching grass grow would be more productive than talking to a mook who is completely ignorant but thinks that somehow he's wonderfully informed.
Click to expand...

Ok, well enjoy watching this guy get sentenced to a day in prison tomorrow. That's probably a day more than he deserves.
 
superrific said:
Let's suppose you're right: they were fired on first by a person in the apartment. Is it your position that everyone in the apartment is now fair game? It's OK to kill babies and little children? Or is your position that if a baby died the cop should go to jail but not if a black woman dies? Where are you drawing the line? What if it wasn't a shot? What if it was a firecracker? Or a gun with blanks?
Click to expand...

ZZLPHeels said:
Well, for starters, if Israel wasn't lying about the tunnels then the tunnels aren't "imaginary". They are real. And everyone knows that they are real: Inside the tunnels of Gaza

With regard to your second question, that depends on the military value of whatever or whoever is in the tunnel being targeted. If you are just blowing up the tunnel to blow up the tunnel, I don't think collateral damage is warranted. If you have reason to believe that terrorists or weapons are in that particular section of the tunnel, then it is a cost-benefit analysis situation. It is unfortunate for the civilians of Gaza that Hamas has put tunnels under essentially every aspect of civilian infrastructure.
Click to expand...
 
superrific said:
In this expression, shooting first isn't relative to another person; it means you shoot before thinking.
Click to expand...
Ok, still not seeing a relation between the two posts. Additionally, when you are being shot at, taking time to think before shooting back is a luxury that you may not have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top