No excuses for the guy who shot him and glad the young fella will be OK. Among other things, I’d hazard a guess that the homeowner’s mid-80’s age might have contributed to the poor decision.
Just taking my queue from you lefties.
You were the first person to exclaim his guilt haha
What about Judge Thomas where you pretty much inferred he was guilty, or the guy that refused to get out of his car after being pulled over? We sure don't have all of the facts on those, yet..........
Considering Judge Thomas has (belatedly) admitted the allegations were true... I feel ok about my stance that he should be held accountable if he broke a law which is what I said in the first place. Now that he has addmitted it he is being allowed to ammend his disclosures (isnt that nice) and has been referred to federal judges via complaint for review. We will see where it goes. I never said he was guilty of anything ...or that they should take away his civil rights and throw away the key. Hopefully ab2cmiller will be along shortly to reprimand you for your obvious ignorance of due process and proper jurisprudence. haha.What about Judge Thomas where you pretty much inferred he was guilty, or the guy that refused to get out of his car after being pulled over? We sure don't have all of the facts on those, yet..........
Are you going to reprimand Irish#1 for his very open stance on denying this man his proper standing in court?
Irish#1, is your stance that a defendant has to prove they are innocent in order to be found not guilty?
Obviously as he has already rendered a guilty decision in the absence of any evidence and stop making it seem like that is what I said it is always and in 100% of the cases. I never said you always have to prove innocence. I said there are many scenarios where there is the theory and then in the real practice of law that yes people and their lawyers have to end up doing that in order to win in court or those seeking freedom after a wrongful conviction. That is exactly what you have to do. I even gave you multiple lawyer office sites where they explicitly address the need for their clients to have to prove their innonce 😂 Keep going though.
I was asking #1. Not sure why you needed to respond. LOL
No no no no... he very clearly posted what he meant. His word's are clear I'll quote them for you:
If you are so upset at me for even hinting at the disparity between reality and theory of English Common law, which practicing lawyers acknowledge is a real part of their client services.... , then you should absolutely be up his ass currently defending English Common Law with the voracity that you hit me with. Please, explain to him in great detail and belligerence how English Common Law does not allow for this type of decision making process in theory and in practice and that all criminals are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that his stance would be a clear violation of due process. Please cite numerous sources so that you can show him how wrong he is. I'll wait. XOXO
I'm asking #1 a question. Please be patient. Again, not sure why you are so upset. Deep breaths my man.
Breathing fine and in a good mood bro. Not sure why you got so upset at me when I responded about Pelosi's tweet and you proceeded to belligerently explain to me how English Common Law is absolute in theory and practice.
so much so that the conversation went on most of the day. I clearly triggered you. Wondering why im so special.
I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
I think it’s pretty clear that you are willing to let #1 off the hook for saying something that was 10 times more an affront to the judicial process than anything Cack suggested. You are “asking #1 a question” and railed on Cack for days. Maybe that’s it.
In civil cases taking the 5th…. A jury can assume that you are therefore guilty.
Its your stance he is guilty before his day in court, though and his civil rights should be ignored. ab2cmiller shoudl be along shortly to reprimand your elementary ignorance of English Common Law. You should prepare accordingly.
I think the issue is he was going to lose his job and like many entitled young people in society he took a very short sided selfish view of the situation and took it out on other people he probably blamed or felt jealous of for not being fired. These things need to be viewed upon like a suicide (because that’s what it is). People commit suicide because they see it as the easy way out instead of dealing with life or life consequences… it’s a very selfish decision… except these mass shooters feel entitled and take out people with them. Misery loves company. Hurt people, hurt people.
There's a big difference between explaining and excusing. People do stuff for a reason, generally. Nobody is trying to excuse what the guy did. If we find out he had CTE, though, that would make it a lot easier to understand. Some people shoot up a school or work place because they're evil, angry at the world, high as a kite, want revenge, tired of feeling powerless, or want attention. Others are genuinely mentally ill from schizophrenia, have a brain injury, or a brain tumor. We generally regard their culpability as less since their mental state was altered through no fault of their own. I have no idea if this guy had CTE or a brain tumor or what his reason was, but trying to find out is not excusing it.
abcnews.go.com
Link in the article to another story where some young adults pulled into the wrong driveway. The homeowner shoots twice killing a girl in the car.Police arrest man who allegedly shot 6-year-old when basketball rolled into yard
A North Carolina man allegedly shot a 6-year-old girl, her parents and an additional neighbor after a basketball rolled into his yard.
Sounds like the dude didn’t have both oars in the water……
Doesn't help the ones in the militia look like extras from Deliverance.
Their chicks might not be easy on the eyes, but at least they don't have dicks.
