The arrogance of Black Families and the BLM Movement

[Vastator]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

If the perp is still moving, he's still a threat. Were trained to keep shooting till the threat is neutralized. Long story, short... Toby tried robbing the wrong guy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

If the perp is still moving, he's still a threat. Were trained to keep shooting till the threat is neutralized. Long story, short... Toby tried robbing the wrong guy.

Toby tried robbing the wrong guy.

Who the hell was/is Toby? The dead boy's name, according to the article, was Darius. Is Toby one of his friends or something? How could you know that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Back in the day we were taught (which was not always the case) if a black man was accused of a crime against a white man the facts didn't matter the black man was guilty. All people will recognize this as an injustice. Yet blacks now try to say no matter what a black man does to a white man the black man is innocent and the white man is guilty.

Family of teen killed in Arcadia want agent to face criminal charges

Take the clear cut case of the Arcadia teens robbing a white man. Here is what happen. A off duty custom agent was walking home in Arcadia, CO. 3 black teens strike him on the back of his head knocking him to the floor, one of the teens has a gun pointed at him and demand his money. Fearing for his life he takes up his legally carried firearm and shoots the teens. One dies. The assailants gun is found at the scene. So clear cut the liberal anti white area DA doesn't even consider charges.

Yet what does the ignorant family say. The victim didn't need to shoot back and defend himself. The victim should be prosecuted for doing so. BLM reiterated this and is protesting. Ignorant fuckers! Maybe they should have been better parents and taught their son to study in school and not rob people. They need to look inwards, BECAUSE THEIR SON'S DEATH IS THEIR FAULT!!! They should apologize to the victim for being such horrible parents!

Ignorant as they come!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One data point rarely proves anything, but your single data point - this post ^^^ - proves racism is alive and in your heart.

How so?

How so? He has gone from a specific individuals act, and made a universal statement about a movement which has a basis for claiming black lives matter. It is both racist and illogical - which usually go hand in hand.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

You're entitled to speculate on why the attorney said that, but that's all it is -- your speculation.

• Were you present for the events that transpired?
• Are you privy to the police reports about it?
• Did the boys attorney share with you details that haven't made it into the story?

I'm just wondering on what basis one should think your posited reasons are plausible and probable. I haven't any "theory" to offer for my answer to each of the above questions is "no." All I have to go on is what's in the story the OP-er linked to the OP.

The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does.

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

 

[IM2]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

If the perp is still moving, he's still a threat. Were trained to keep shooting till the threat is neutralized. Long story, short... Toby tried robbing the wrong guy.

Long story short, whites don't get killed like this. Stop justifying these racist murders.

 

[GHook93]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

No that was the family's factless view. Kind of like hands up don't shoot, Michael was walking away, Trayvon was a peaceful tiny 11 yr old chorus boy, Freddie Gray was not harming himself, etc etc etc.

See they don't want to take responsibility for their son getting killed in an armed robbery so they say he was an innocent participant gunned down execution style


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

You're entitled to speculate on why the attorney said that, but that's all it is -- your speculation.

• Were you present for the events that transpired?
• Are you privy to the police reports about it?
• Did the boys attorney share with you details that haven't made it into the story?

I'm just wondering on what basis one should think your posited reasons are plausible and probable. I haven't any "theory" to offer for my answer to each of the above questions is "no." All I have to go on is what's in the story the OP-er linked to the OP.

The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does.

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

 

[IM2]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

No that was the family's factless view. Kind of like hands up don't shoot, Michael was walking away, Trayvon was a peaceful tiny 11 yr old chorus boy, Freddie Gray was not harming himself, etc etc etc.

See they don't want to take responsibility for their son getting killed in an armed robbery so they say he was an innocent participant gunned down execution style


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another idiot.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

You're entitled to speculate on why the attorney said that, but that's all it is -- your speculation.

• Were you present for the events that transpired?
• Are you privy to the police reports about it?
• Did the boys attorney share with you details that haven't made it into the story?

I'm just wondering on what basis one should think your posited reasons are plausible and probable. I haven't any "theory" to offer for my answer to each of the above questions is "no." All I have to go on is what's in the story the OP-er linked to the OP.

The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does.

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

 

[usmbguest5318]

You're entitled to speculate on why the attorney said that, but that's all it is -- your speculation.

• Were you present for the events that transpired?
• Are you privy to the police reports about it?
• Did the boys attorney share with you details that haven't made it into the story?

I'm just wondering on what basis one should think your posited reasons are plausible and probable. I haven't any "theory" to offer for my answer to each of the above questions is "no." All I have to go on is what's in the story the OP-er linked to the OP.

The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does.

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

 

[GHook93]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

And after the assailant was shot in the legs he could have still been firing at the agent, quite possibly, so the agent ended it by shooting him in the chest. That's possible.

Or multiple shots were fired and he was hit in the leg and shortly after hit in the chest.

There is absolutely no proof he stood over him and executed him.

But the bottom line is, he would still be alive but for the fact he committed armed robbery


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[GHook93]

Back in the day we were taught (which was not always the case) if a black man was accused of a crime against a white man the facts didn't matter the black man was guilty. All people will recognize this as an injustice. Yet blacks now try to say no matter what a black man does to a white man the black man is innocent and the white man is guilty.

Family of teen killed in Arcadia want agent to face criminal charges

Take the clear cut case of the Arcadia teens robbing a white man. Here is what happen. A off duty custom agent was walking home in Arcadia, CO. 3 black teens strike him on the back of his head knocking him to the floor, one of the teens has a gun pointed at him and demand his money. Fearing for his life he takes up his legally carried firearm and shoots the teens. One dies. The assailants gun is found at the scene. So clear cut the liberal anti white area DA doesn't even consider charges.

Yet what does the ignorant family say. The victim didn't need to shoot back and defend himself. The victim should be prosecuted for doing so. BLM reiterated this and is protesting. Ignorant fuckers! Maybe they should have been better parents and taught their son to study in school and not rob people. They need to look inwards, BECAUSE THEIR SON'S DEATH IS THEIR FAULT!!! They should apologize to the victim for being such horrible parents!

Ignorant as they come.

Family of teen killed in Arcadia want agent to face criminal charges

Take the clear cut case of the Arcadia teens robbing a white man. Here is what happen. A off duty custom agent was walking home in Arcadia, CO.

Op-er, I don't know what shenanigans you are up to, but it looks like you are desperately grasping at straws to make some sort of sophistic inflammatory point. (I believe among the Internet proletariat what you're doing is called "trolling.") In any case, it's clear you did not actually or carefully read the news article you cited for you have made attestations that aren't at all supported by the news article/video to which you linked.

• Neither the text nor video indicates the off-duty customs agent is a white man.
• The article contains the phrase "at First Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in Arcadia." That does not, however,site the events described in Colorado.
• The story clearly states the customs agent lives in San Francisco and works in Arcadia. Nobody walks to San Francisco from Arcadia, CO (if there even is such a place). They also don't walk home from Arcadia, CA to San Francisco.
• 
  

• what does the ignorant family say. The victim didn't need to shoot back and defend himself.

  
  Actually, according to the article, that isn't at all what the Smith family said. It's not even close. What they said, through their attorney, is, "Darius Smith was executed. He was not in the midst of a robbery. He was shot twice in the legs first. (He fell) and his shooter got over him and shot him three times in the chest." They also stated they disbelieve the narrative given by the customs agent, and the Smith family indicated they wanted the off-duty customs agent to face criminal charges.

Ignorant as they come!

You know, in light of the above noted incongruities between your synopsis of events and those depicted in the article/video, anyone who reads both can tell that were you to look in the mirror you'd see as plain a manifestation of "ignorant as they come" as is possible to see.

Ok numbnutz if you get shot when robbing someone then you are shot committing a robbery. The execution version is the family and the attorney it baseless. Much like Mike Brown was running away with his hands up, Freddie Gray was beaten and Trayvon Martin was a scared 11 yr old boy running away (not towards) a crazed white man.

Trust numbnutz her was either white or Hispanic


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

Back in the day we were taught (which was not always the case) if a black man was accused of a crime against a white man the facts didn't matter the black man was guilty. All people will recognize this as an injustice. Yet blacks now try to say no matter what a black man does to a white man the black man is innocent and the white man is guilty.

Family of teen killed in Arcadia want agent to face criminal charges

Take the clear cut case of the Arcadia teens robbing a white man. Here is what happen. A off duty custom agent was walking home in Arcadia, CO. 3 black teens strike him on the back of his head knocking him to the floor, one of the teens has a gun pointed at him and demand his money. Fearing for his life he takes up his legally carried firearm and shoots the teens. One dies. The assailants gun is found at the scene. So clear cut the liberal anti white area DA doesn't even consider charges.

Yet what does the ignorant family say. The victim didn't need to shoot back and defend himself. The victim should be prosecuted for doing so. BLM reiterated this and is protesting. Ignorant fuckers! Maybe they should have been better parents and taught their son to study in school and not rob people. They need to look inwards, BECAUSE THEIR SON'S DEATH IS THEIR FAULT!!! They should apologize to the victim for being such horrible parents!

Ignorant as they come.

Family of teen killed in Arcadia want agent to face criminal charges

Take the clear cut case of the Arcadia teens robbing a white man. Here is what happen. A off duty custom agent was walking home in Arcadia, CO.

Op-er, I don't know what shenanigans you are up to, but it looks like you are desperately grasping at straws to make some sort of sophistic inflammatory point. (I believe among the Internet proletariat what you're doing is called "trolling.") In any case, it's clear you did not actually or carefully read the news article you cited for you have made attestations that aren't at all supported by the news article/video to which you linked.

• Neither the text nor video indicates the off-duty customs agent is a white man.
• The article contains the phrase "at First Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in Arcadia." That does not, however,site the events described in Colorado.
• The story clearly states the customs agent lives in San Francisco and works in Arcadia. Nobody walks to San Francisco from Arcadia, CO (if there even is such a place). They also don't walk home from Arcadia, CA to San Francisco.
• 
  

• what does the ignorant family say. The victim didn't need to shoot back and defend himself.

  
  Actually, according to the article, that isn't at all what the Smith family said. It's not even close. What they said, through their attorney, is, "Darius Smith was executed. He was not in the midst of a robbery. He was shot twice in the legs first. (He fell) and his shooter got over him and shot him three times in the chest." They also stated they disbelieve the narrative given by the customs agent, and the Smith family indicated they wanted the off-duty customs agent to face criminal charges.

Ignorant as they come!

You know, in light of the above noted incongruities between your synopsis of events and those depicted in the article/video, anyone who reads both can tell that were you to look in the mirror you'd see as plain a manifestation of "ignorant as they come" as is possible to see.

Ok numbnutz if you get shot when robbing someone then you are shot committing a robbery. The execution version is the family and the attorney it baseless. Much like Mike Brown was running away with his hands up, Freddie Gray was beaten and Trayvon Martin was a scared 11 yr old boy running away (not towards) a crazed white man.

Trust numbnutz her was either white or Hispanic

Would you mind rewriting your ideas in standard English so I can tell just what you are communicating.

You might also try doing it without the puerile insults. If you feel compelled to deride me in the rewrite, fine, but please do so with a bit of "portfolio" rather than by merely levying unfounded and unsubstantiated sobriquets. I have certainly castigated people here, but I have yet to do so without providing credibly reasoned support for the aspersions I toss their way.

If you want to engage with me, great, but I'm only going to participate if you engage in an adult matter. And, no, using the same sort of vocabulary and "advanced" grammatical styles I do isn't what I mean by "engaging as an adult." I just need you to use complete sentences that accurately and precisely communicate what you mean.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

You're entitled to speculate on why the attorney said that, but that's all it is -- your speculation.

• Were you present for the events that transpired?
• Are you privy to the police reports about it?
• Did the boys attorney share with you details that haven't made it into the story?

I'm just wondering on what basis one should think your posited reasons are plausible and probable. I haven't any "theory" to offer for my answer to each of the above questions is "no." All I have to go on is what's in the story the OP-er linked to the OP.

The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does.

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.


Extant is a good word - new to me

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly.

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

I made no remark indicating or hinting that the attorney (or any of them) is or is not "upstanding." I'm merely reading the information available and cognizant, therefore, of the limits of what can rationally be inferred from that information. In light of the information given in the article, I see no credible basis for the speculations you have made. Moreover, I don't see, based on the Smith family's attestations (via their lawyer), that there's anything arrogant about what they've said or requested.

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

 

[Anathema]

The customs agent leaned over the suspect and shot him three times in the chest after shooting him twice in the legs from the ground. Seems more like an execution than self-defense.

Executjon or not, it's exactly what the mofo deserved..... JUSTICE. That's something we all know the Legal System would not have delivered.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You said:

"The article doesn't indicate that the lawyer indicated on what basis he thinks the charges should be dropped. As an attorney, I'm sure he's got some basis for believing as he does."

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals.

His basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.
No matter how silly

It is funny how you act like attorney's are upstanding individuals....[The Davis family's attorney's] basis is getting paid and doing what the paying client wants.

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

I also don't know why it's so difficult for you to tell that we simply haven't been given enough information to credibly conclude who was right and who was wrong, what was self-defense and what wasn't, etc. For now, I'm positing that it's due to much the same reason(s) that have prevented your intellectual acuity and general knowledge base from reaching the point where you distinguish between "there" and "their." In other words, because you just don't think or pay attention to much other than what you want to and makes you feel good doing. (And don't give me some "typo" crap. "There" is not a typo for "their." It's flat out not knowing there are two simple, basic English words with two completely different meanings.)

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

I also don't know why it's so difficult for you to tell that we simply haven't been given enough information to credibly conclude who was right and who was wrong, what was self-defense and what wasn't, etc. For now, I'm positing that it's due to much the same reason(s) that have prevented your intellectual acuity and general knowledge base from reaching the point where you distinguish between "there" and "their." In other words, because you just don't think or pay attention to much other than what you want to and makes you feel good doing. (And don't give me some "typo" crap. "There" is not a typo for "their.")

I get it now cuppy cakes - when you lose you resort to grammar police.

I would bet that the thugs had worse grammar - ebonics like.

And then the toxicology report - oh my!!!!

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Funny is not the term I'd use to describe your stance that amounts to your utterly rejecting the Constitutionally established (6th Amendment) presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Indeed, you've, based on nothing specifically known pertaining to the boys or their attorney, rejected that doctrine with regard to the boys and also with regard to their attorney's integrity.

1. I'm not acting like anything. I have maintained a position whereby Merritt is due the benefit of the doubt because aside from what's reported in the news story, I know nothing about the man, the family he's representing, or the case in question.
2. I've asked you whether you are aware of any details beyond those indicated in the news story, you've not answered that you do, to say nothing of with us sharing any details not found in the article and that you may have.
3. The only thing in the news article that militates for the boys having attempted to rob the customs agent is the agent's contested statement to that effect. He says one thing and the boys say the opposite. Accordingly, there's nothing we've been given in the article that militates for one's concurrence with either side as goes the veracity of the robbery assertion. Indeed, there's not even so much as an image of the agent or a hospital's/doctor's report that confirms the agent even has a head injury, to say nothing of whether the boys be the cause of it.
4. You've not established, not even circumstantially to say nothing of with a high degree of probability, that Merritt is an attorney who is not an upstanding individual, yet you've implied that, in his capacity as the Davis family's attorney, he is ethically, in essence, an "ambulance chaser." (That concept is applicable to civil (personal injury) matters/attorney, and the case in question is a criminal one, moreover.) In other words, you seem to have a general impression in your mind that attorneys are scoundrels and you have in turn ascribed that quality to Merritt, all the while having shared no specific details -- none about Merritt or the case under discussion -- that support your assertions about Merritt in particular.
5. You've not established that Merritt has no legal basis for the attestations he's made.

Raising a little thug has consequences.

THE END

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

I also don't know why it's so difficult for you to tell that we simply haven't been given enough information to credibly conclude who was right and who was wrong, what was self-defense and what wasn't, etc. For now, I'm positing that it's due to much the same reason(s) that have prevented your intellectual acuity and general knowledge base from reaching the point where you distinguish between "there" and "their." In other words, because you just don't think or pay attention to much other than what you want to and makes you feel good doing. (And don't give me some "typo" crap. "There" is not a typo for "their." It's flat out not knowing there are two simple, basic English words with two completely different meanings.)

But who did the informed police charge and detain and who did the release uncharged.

But you know better.

Sad really.