SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,818
- 365
Of course. Amazing. Someone who actually follows the law. Unlike the democrat lawmakers.
Right. And the announcement that he would pardon before the trial was held?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course. Amazing. Someone who actually follows the law. Unlike the democrat lawmakers.
People do that all the time.Right. And the announcement that he would pardon before the trial was held?
People do that all the time.
Hell, Bragg and fani both ran on promises they would go after Trump. That's prima facie evidence of political prosecution, but yet again, you don't care about the corruption of the legal system.
Funny that.
No, not all. Sheesh, you really are either lying through your teeth, or have no clue.There are big differences. Ones you ignore.
First there are preliminary hearings where all the evidence and arguments are discussed. If you not like a decision you appeal it. As the Prosecution has in the Documents case. If the decision by the judge is wrong it is overturned. As in the documents case.
Then there is finally a jury trial. The defense makes the case and the Jury decides what happened. This is by the way the Constitutional system we created at the founding of our nation.
If the Jury got it wrong. Then there are appeals. New evidence that proves innocence.
A pardon is forgiveness. Not exoneration. It is forgiving the individual for their crime. Promising one before the trial is political. Imagine if a Democrat promised to pardon a black person for murdering a white. Before the trial was ever held. Before a Jury heard the case. You would be headed to the Hospital. Your head would literally explode.
No, not all. Sheesh, you really are either lying through your teeth, or have no clue.
A prelim lasts in most cases half an hour to three hours. It is a presentation of just enough evidence to convince a judge that there is enough to go forward to an actual trial.
A Pardon EXHONERATES those who were convicted WRONGLY!
The various groups that use DNA to prove their clients are INNOCENT of the crime they were convicted of don't then tell them "okay, you are going to be Pardoned for the crime you didn't commit, but first you have to confess that you actually did it"!
Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?
My argument hasnt changedWhen talking to me, when you feel you have to have an actual moral justification, you insist, by making incredulous arguments that this was about self-defense.
You have everything backwards, as usual.No. The appeal overturns the wrongful conviction. A pardon forgives them of their crimes.
Nixon was pardoned. By doing so Ford didn’t say that Nixon didn’t do it. He said Nixon was forgiven for what he did.
Every year people are pardoned. They are forgiven their crimes. The President, or Governor issuing the Pardon isn’t saying they were innocent all along. They are saying the person is forgiven. If you didn’t learn that in Civics while in High School. I suggest you start reading some textbooks. Because you were screwed on your education.
My argument hasnt changed
If you review I said a long time ago that Perry should have avoided a confrontation if possible
If I were in his place I would have - if possible
But Foster brandishing a weapon the way he did was just asking for trouble also
That's why I called him a pussy
He was a wannabe tough guy who was playing games when he should be taking a dangerous weapon seriously
Lol, at this point I'm amazed you aren't choking on your own BS. You don't call someone you perceive as acting foolishly a pussy. You call them dumb, or foolish. Or whatever. Pussy is reserved for cowards. Someone shying away from an unpleasant duty.My argument hasnt changed
If you review I said a long time ago that Perry should have avoided a confrontation if possible
If I were in his place I would have - if possible
But Foster brandishing a weapon the way he did was just asking for trouble also
That's why I called him a pussy
He was a wannabe tough guy who was playing games when he should be taking a dangerous weapon seriously
You and forkup are making the same inconsistent argumentIt isn’t Perry’s place to charge the crowd and try and clear the road. He isn’t trained or empowered by law to do so. That is not his job. He went looking for trouble and found it.
I said Perry acted foolishlyLol, at this point I'm amazed you aren't choking on your own BS. You don't call someone you perceive as acting foolishly a pussy.
You and forkup are making the same inconsistent argument
Yes Foster had a legal right to foolishly open carry an AK47 during a riot/protest
But you deny that Perry had a legal right to drive his car on a public street whether Black Liars Matter rowdies like it or not
And they had no legal right to mob his car
A little common sense by everyone involved was missing
Do do expect to stand in traffic like a sacred cow in India?Right to drive? Yes. Right to make contact with people? No. Right to bump them with his car? Absolutely not. That would be illegal no matter what.
If they mob your car in an attempt to prevent your movement that is de facto kidnapping. Expect a violent response from now on.Right to drive? Yes. Right to make contact with people? No. Right to bump them with his car? Absolutely not. That would be illegal no matter what.
Do do expect to stand in traffic like a sacred cow in India?
The mob of BLM wackos were illegally blocking the street
I would not have done that
Would you?
It says it's against the law to block a road.Regardless. What does the law say about it? If you hit them you have committed Assault right? In Georgia it is Assault with a Deadly Weapon, even if you just bump them.
We are debating two things. How smart it was. And if it was a crime. We both agree it wasn’t smart. But the law says that Perry committed a crime.
The only reason you claim it's inconsistent is because you start from the premise that carrying a weapon legally and using a car to run a red light and purposefully drive into a crowd are equivalent. They are not. Running a red light is a misdemeanor and purposefully driving into a crowd is assault. Carrying a weapon on the other hand is perfectly legal in Texas. It's all about intent. As most crimes are. This is not about competing rights. This is about one person murdering another, because he thought he could get away with it.You and forkup are making the same inconsistent argument
Yes Foster had a legal right to foolishly open carry an AK47 during a riot/protest
But you deny that Perry had a legal right to drive his car on a public street whether Black Liars Matter rowdies like it or not
And they had no legal right to mob his car
A little common sense by everyone involved was missing
Perry didnt hit anyone with is carIf you hit them you have committed Assault right?
Nah he was the cool kid that KILLED a guy because he didn't like his politics. As I said. You applaud political violence aimed as those you don't like. Something you are willing to admit to other people who share your political affiliation.I said Perry acted foolishly
But he was no pussy who was playing a game of Billy Bad Ass - maybe to impress his girl friend - the way Foster was
You mean the asshole in North Dakota who murdered that 16 year old by running him over, that poor kid?Nah he was the cool kid that KILLED a guy because he didn't like his politics. As I said. You applaud political violence aimed as those you don't like. Something you are willing to admit to other people who share your political affiliation.