E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-25-2012, 02:21 PM   #1541
325inthe510
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Best Coast
Posts: 6,315
My Ride: 152ci of madness
^
Smoked dope, sold dope, stole jewelry, suspended from school, assaulted a bus driver........

BUT NO IT WAS BABY TRAYVON!!!! SUCH A SWEET INNOCENT CHILD COULDN'T HARM A FLY!!!!

__________________

325inthe510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:24 PM   #1542
phrozen06
NA V8
 
phrozen06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 39°27'33"N 77°58'04"W
Posts: 7,513
My Ride: E46, E92 M3, R32 VW
Send a message via Yahoo to phrozen06
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Because racist f*cktards want "justice".... or, if we're being honest, they want revenge because a POS black kid was shot in self defense after he jumped a stand-up guy.

Remember... logic < racism for these idiots.

Just look at Phrozen's stance on this one.. it's mind boggling that he can still stand by Trayvon... and he will continue to even if a video came out showing that Martin jumped him from behind yelling "take this n*gg@"
LOL. You post POS Black Kid then put my name in the same thread post. Truely Amazing. You have lost your grip. I'd love to see the look on your face when you find out that Jesus was of a darker HUE.
__________________

S65: 4.0 Liter, V8, 414 hp @8,300 rpm, 295 lb/ft @3900 rpm, 445 lb, DOHC, 12:1 C/R, crankshaft 44 lb, wet sump.
2 oil pumps,double vanos variable valve timing, EMS: MSS60, 8 electronically controlled individual throttle butterflies.
4 valves per cylinder, cracked trapezoidal connecting rods, brake energy regeneration. Ion-flow combustion monitoring.


Last edited by phrozen06; 05-25-2012 at 02:52 PM.
phrozen06 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 03:00 PM   #1543
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Because racist f*cktards want "justice".... or, if we're being honest, they want revenge because a POS black kid was shot in self defense after he jumped a stand-up guy.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 03:08 PM   #1544
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 11,896
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
ITT: people struggle with the simple concept that people might not be 100 percent good or 100 percent bad.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 03:14 PM   #1545
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 816
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
I'm confused with the idea that he may or may not have been a drug dealer. If he was, does that warrant his death (all other things being equal)?
__________________

Present
2011 BMW 135i - BSM
Past
2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET

E46Sig

Last edited by evolved; 05-25-2012 at 03:18 PM.
evolved is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 03:17 PM   #1546
325inthe510
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Best Coast
Posts: 6,315
My Ride: 152ci of madness
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
ITT: people struggle with the simple concept that people might not be 100 percent good or 100 percent bad.
Doesn't matter when one was 100% white, and the other was 100% black
__________________

325inthe510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 03:31 PM   #1547
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
I'm confused with the idea that he may or may not have been a drug dealer. If he was, does that warrant his death (all other things being equal)?
Come on dude, you know why that information is being put out there #TrayvonTheInnocentCherub
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 04:19 PM   #1548
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 363
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
I don't see why a person who hasn't committed a crime should be held under lock and key
He's not. He's out and about.
Whether he committed a crime or not... that's your opinion. Others have different opinions. That's for the court to decide.

I seriously don't get this...
The people here on Z's side are jumping up and down because he was charged.
Not that he's being held without bond, or denied food, or anything like that. Just that he was charged.
If you are sure that what he did was in self defense, and according to you the evidence strongly supports that, you would absolutely WANT a day in court, no? How else you can get free publicity and advance your "stand your ground" case?
You should be hoping for a trial where your side can be officially vindicated.

Why the fuzz?
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 05-25-2012 at 04:21 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 04:24 PM   #1549
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,475
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post

I seriously don't get this...
The people here on Z's side are jumping up and down because he was charged.
Not that he's being held without bond, or denied food, or anything like that. Just that he was charged.
If you are sure that about what he did was in self defense, and according to you the evidence strongly supports that, you would absolutely WANT a day in court, no? How else you can get free publicity and advance your "stand your ground" case?
You should be hoping for a trial where your side can be officially vindicated
.

Why the fuzz?
No, our court system is not setup for vindication or to prove people innocent. It is setup to establish guilt and convictions. People are innocent until proven guilty. I know you hear it said over and over and over again, but do you REALLY understand what it means? Zimmerman is innocent in every shape and form. Unless there is evidence presented that a jury would view establishing guilt of crime beyond a reasonable doubt, he must REMAIN innocent. Not be determined innocent or found innocent, REMAIN innocent.

A very simple concept that people should understand better.
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 06:38 PM   #1550
Swish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 285
My Ride: 2004 M3 Vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
you're not really one to be lecturing us about racial tension unless you're citing yourself as an example. And excellent job pointing this back to the liberals and the media. Like we don't already hear that in every other thread you post.
+1
__________________

"If you want to move past racism, you have to STOP LABELING EVERYTHING BY RACE / 2000_328CI"
Swish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 07:32 PM   #1551
Swish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 285
My Ride: 2004 M3 Vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by 325inthe510 View Post
^
Smoked dope, sold dope, stole jewelry, suspended from school, assaulted a bus driver........

BUT NO IT WAS BABY TRAYVON!!!! SUCH A SWEET INNOCENT CHILD COULDN'T HARM A FLY!!!!

Although Im not saying he "wasn't", there's nothing here that says he was dealing drugs, just "possibilities"... The media is fvcking this case over from both sides
__________________

"If you want to move past racism, you have to STOP LABELING EVERYTHING BY RACE / 2000_328CI"
Swish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 07:55 PM   #1552
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
He's not. He's out and about. NOVA was responding to someone else that was referring to GZ seeming to be walking freely around the inside of the police station the night of the shooting, as opposed to being held in a cell or an interview room. He's not talking about being out on bail after being charged.
Whether he committed a crime or not... that's your opinion. Others have different opinions. That's for the court to decide.

I seriously don't get this...
The people here on Z's side are jumping up and down because he was charged.
Not that he's being held without bond, or denied food, or anything like that. Just that he was charged.
If you are sure that what he did was in self defense, and according to you the evidence strongly supports that, you would absolutely WANT a day in court, no? How else you can get free publicity and advance your "stand your ground" case?
You should be hoping for a trial where your side can be officially vindicated.

Why the fuzz?
IIRC, the FL law is written in such a way that if someone WAS defending themself, they cannot be charged, never mind get all the way to a trial where theyre declared not guilty by reason of self defense.

If thats correct, and the preponderence of evidence supports GZ's claim of self defense, can you then see why GZ's supporters would see him being charged and arrested as unjust and probably politically motivated solely because of the media attention?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 08:06 PM   #1553
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 363
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
No, our court system is not setup for vindication or to prove people innocent. It is setup to establish guilt and convictions. People are innocent until proven guilty. I know you hear it said over and over and over again, but do you REALLY understand what it means? Zimmerman is innocent in every shape and form. Unless there is evidence presented that a jury would view establishing guilt of crime beyond a reasonable doubt, he must REMAIN innocent. Not be determined innocent or found innocent, REMAIN innocent.

A very simple concept that people should understand better.
Despite your attempt to split hair...
The fact is: until proven guilty has to be done within the judicial process we have established in this country. Definitely not in a discussion forum, where all you have is what's been leaked in the media and your prejudiced ideas.
The only way to do that is to have a trial, where both sides will have a chance to present whatever they want to present.
You are one of the loudest ones in this forum about no evidence, or the evidence we have proves Z's story, etc.
Your objection to go to trial baffles me.

You do realize that the rules you're advocating must go both ways, yes?
People make mistakes. Young people make big mistakes. It's all part of the learning process and life experience.
In your world, a lot of teens wouldn't survive.
Say your bored teenager wants to ring door bells and run. Some gun maniac shoots your son or daughter and claims "protecting his castle".
And no, there were no witnesses. But he can't be inconvenienced to even be summoned to court if you don't produce some kind of irrefutable evidence first.

I bet none of you guys who are spouting these nonsenses here at the top of your lungs have teenagers. Either that or you're just using the board as a frustration escape valve. You don't really mean the nonsense you write here. In real life you wouldn't dare say the bs you say here in a face to face conversation with someone.
JJ, I know you have young kids. That doesn't count. When they become teens, and rebelious (yes, all of them will go through that phase, in varying degrees), I'm sure you will mellow out and wish society were more forgiving of other's mistakes.
Either that or you're really a ruthless individual. I don't think you are.
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 05-25-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 08:24 PM   #1554
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 363
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
IIRC, the FL law is written in such a way that if someone WAS defending themself, they cannot be charged, never mind get all the way to a trial where theyre declared not guilty by reason of self defense.

If thats correct, and the preponderence of evidence supports GZ's claim of self defense, can you then see why GZ's supporters would see him being charged and arrested as unjust and probably politically motivated solely because of the media attention?
I could see that apply if there were witnesses that unequivocally corroborate the shooter's story.
Or the evidence is such that there can be no doubts, like the dead was trying to rob the shooter.

Say I simply don't like someone. All I have to do is make sure to approach said person when there's no witnesses around, I shoot the person and claim self defense. I'm scotch free until someone can prove otherwise (without a trial)?
Or even a less radical scenario. Say two people get in a fight (and yes, every redneck wedding ends up in a brawl). One shoots the other (which is unarmed). Self defense? Sure, they are fighting after all. No charges?
Where does this lead to? Whoever carries the biggest gun? Whoever pulls it out faster? Wild West anyone?

That can't be the original intent of the law, if it in fact say what you said above. If it does, it's a badly designed law and this Treyvon incident should provide enough motivation to change it.
Someone's life can't be that cheap and dismissed that callously. That was how it was in the Wild West. We evolved. We moved away from that. There is a reason.
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 05-25-2012 at 08:32 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 10:17 PM   #1555
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
I could see that apply if there were witnesses that unequivocally corroborate the shooter's story.
Or the evidence is such that there can be no doubts, like the dead was trying to rob the shooter.

Say I simply don't like someone. All I have to do is make sure to approach said person when there's no witnesses around, I shoot the person and claim self defense. I'm scotch free until someone can prove otherwise (without a trial)?
Or even a less radical scenario. Say two people get in a fight (and yes, every redneck wedding ends up in a brawl). One shoots the other (which is unarmed). Self defense? Sure, they are fighting after all. No charges?
Where does this lead to? Whoever carries the biggest gun? Whoever pulls it out faster? Wild West anyone?

That can't be the original intent of the law, if it in fact say what you said above. If it does, it's a badly designed law and this Treyvon incident should provide enough motivation to change it.
Someone's life can't be that cheap and dismissed that callously. That was how it was in the Wild West. We evolved. We moved away from that. There is a reason.
You and I went over this 3 weeks ago:

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...postcount=1246



So ironically enough, the website where one can read all of FL's laws is called Online Sunshine. Here's the relevant page. I'm copy/pasting the related stuff here, but I encourage you to read the whole thing, just so you can rest assured I'm not cherry picking.

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
So here's the crux of it.

GZ's supporters are looking at what they "know" (as you said, this is only what's leaked to the public, so how accurate or complete it is) and think it's 100% clear that GZ reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. According to FL law, GZ should be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

So in believing the above, GZ supporters see the current criminal prosecution not only as a travesty because it's motivated by media frenzy and public opinion, but also simply illegal according to FL law.

For people that have that viewpoint, "a day in court" isn't an exoneration or confirmation or victory for GZ or SYG laws. A day in court is a failure of the justice/legal system, and calls into question the judgement, integrity and motivations of the DAs whose duty it is to uphold those very laws.

I don't know the step-by-step process in FL. I believe that the DA has to get an indictment by presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. I don't know if the GJ reviews SYG, or a judge has to look it over, or there are pretrial hearings with both sides or what.

But the law clearly states "immune from criminal prosecution", so that indicates there must be some kind of review or process OUTSIDE the normal indict-arrest-arraign-plead-trial process. And yet, they're deep into that process with GZ already.

So either:
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ committed an illegal act that caused the encounter, in which case SYG doesn't apply because it doesn't protect you if you're committing most kinds of crimes. Example, if they think GZ punched TM first, that pretty much voids SYG.
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ was unreasonable in deciding that deadly force was necessary. Example, if they think TM was fleeing, obedient, compliant, etc and GZ shot him anyway, the whole "I was in danger" thing doesn't fly since a reasonable person wouldn't feel threatened with death or great bodily harm in such situations.
- The DA or the DA's bosses simply couldn't stand the media and public opinion frenzy anymore, so they indicted and arrested GZ in spite of his SYG protection just to satiate their constituents.
- The DA or the DA's bosses have political, lecture circuit, or reality TV ambitions, so they indicted and arrested GZ just to get their faces on the national news.

It remains to be seen how it unfolds.

Hope that answers your queston about GZ supporters being eager for the thing to go to trial.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------

Last edited by Xcelratr; 05-25-2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason: Added a bunch of crap that probably no one will read anyway...
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:38 PM   #1556
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 363
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
You and I went over this 3 weeks ago:

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...postcount=1246



So ironically enough, the website where one can read all of FL's laws is called Online Sunshine. Here's the relevant page. I'm copy/pasting the related stuff here, but I encourage you to read the whole thing, just so you can rest assured I'm not cherry picking.





So here's the crux of it.

GZ's supporters are looking at what they "know" (as you said, this is only what's leaked to the public, so how accurate or complete it is) and think it's 100% clear that GZ reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. According to FL law, GZ should be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

So in believing the above, GZ supporters see the current criminal prosecution not only as a travesty because it's motivated by media frenzy and public opinion, but also simply illegal according to FL law.

For people that have that viewpoint, "a day in court" isn't an exoneration or confirmation or victory for GZ or SYG laws. A day in court is a failure of the justice/legal system, and calls into question the judgement, integrity and motivations of the DAs whose duty it is to uphold those very laws.

I don't know the step-by-step process in FL. I believe that the DA has to get an indictment by presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. I don't know if the GJ reviews SYG, or a judge has to look it over, or there are pretrial hearings with both sides or what.

But the law clearly states "immune from criminal prosecution", so that indicates there must be some kind of review or process OUTSIDE the normal indict-arrest-arraign-plead-trial process. And yet, they're deep into that process with GZ already.

So either:
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ committed an illegal act that caused the encounter, in which case SYG doesn't apply because it doesn't protect you if you're committing most kinds of crimes. Example, if they think GZ punched TM first, that pretty much voids SYG.
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ was unreasonable in deciding that deadly force was necessary. Example, if they think TM was fleeing, obedient, compliant, etc and GZ shot him anyway, the whole "I was in danger" thing doesn't fly since a reasonable person wouldn't feel threatened with death or great bodily harm in such situations.
- The DA or the DA's bosses simply couldn't stand the media and public opinion frenzy anymore, so they indicted and arrested GZ in spite of his SYG protection just to satiate their constituents.
- The DA or the DA's bosses have political, lecture circuit, or reality TV ambitions, so they indicted and arrested GZ just to get their faces on the national news.

It remains to be seen how it unfolds.

Hope that answers your queston about GZ supporters being eager for the thing to go to trial.
Given what you posted above, there's only 2 possible explanations for the DA office charging GZ:
a) the DA office is breaking the law, and risking law suits, disbarment and other consequences after the judge throws away their case
b) they have reasonable evidence (probably not leaked to the media) that GZ did not act in self defense

Which of those explanations is more plausible?
__________________
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 01:34 AM   #1557
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish View Post
Although Im not saying he "wasn't", there's nothing here that says he was dealing drugs, just "possibilities"... The media is fvcking this case over from both sides
Bro, you're either the most disingenuous person on earth or retarded if you don't think he was a drug dealer.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 01:36 AM   #1558
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
Given what you posted above, there's only 2 possible explanations for the DA office charging GZ:
a) the DA office is breaking the law, and risking law suits, disbarment and other consequences after the judge throws away their case
b) they have reasonable evidence (probably not leaked to the media) that GZ did not act in self defense

Which of those explanations is more plausible?
More specifically, there are 4, which I listed already:

So either:
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ committed an illegal act that caused the encounter, in which case SYG doesn't apply because it doesn't protect you if you're committing most kinds of crimes. Example, if they think GZ punched TM first, that pretty much voids SYG.
- The DA thinks they can prove GZ was unreasonable in deciding that deadly force was necessary. Example, if they think TM was fleeing, obedient, compliant, etc and GZ shot him anyway, the whole "I was in danger" thing doesn't fly since a reasonable person wouldn't feel threatened with death or great bodily harm in such situations.
- The DA or the DA's bosses simply couldn't stand the media and public opinion frenzy anymore, so they indicted and arrested GZ in spite of his SYG protection just to satiate their constituents.
- The DA or the DA's bosses have political, lecture circuit, or reality TV ambitions, so they indicted and arrested GZ just to get their faces on the national news.


I am all about going with the most plausible explanation, as it's often the truth.

But you're not trying to say that DAs never get caught up in the media frenzy, or hide and tamper with evidence, or fail to disclose inconsistent information given to them by a witness, right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Bro, you're either the most disingenuous person on earth or retarded if you don't think he was a drug dealer.
Swish is one of the most level dudes on this site. In reference to the image that he was responding too, he's absolutely correct.

In today's youth culture, hip hop gansta crack slangin' talk is often cool. Just because a kid and his buddies talk big or make a bunch of innuendo on their FB page, doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at all the virgins on this site that talk about PIITB.

Putting together a collection of images that are vague at best, and following them with questions like "why wasn't he in class, was he dealing drugs?" is stupid.

There's enough allusion and assumption and flying around about this entire case. What there isn't enough of is fact.

Wanna show he was into drugs? Post some facts (maybe they're out there, I haven't been paying much attention to this the last few weeks).

But Swish's comment about that image is dead on.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------

Last edited by Xcelratr; 05-26-2012 at 01:56 AM.
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 08:00 AM   #1559
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 363
My Ride: E46 no more
^^ A matter of granularity.
Your 4 can be summed up into 2: either DA is breaking the law (no matter what the motives are) or they are not.

Your cases where DA is breaking the law and fabricating evidence... I think Act of God is more qualified to answer you.
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 05-26-2012 at 08:02 AM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 09:26 AM   #1560
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
^^ A matter of granularity.
Your 4 can be summed up into 2: either DA is breaking the law (no matter what the motives are) or they are not.
I like grains.

There's also a 5th possibility. What's going on may be a combination of the 4 I mentioned above. Many things in life aren't black and white (oh no, I didnt just say that ITT did I?) but a matter of grey. It may be that they feel they have some evidence regarding the first or the second, and theyre willing to act on it because of the third and/or fourth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
Your cases where DA is breaking the law and fabricating evidence... I think Act of God is more qualified to answer you.
Suddenly you're shy about stating your opinion? LOL. C'mon.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use