Bart Officer arrested for Murder

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.

You're a lawyer so you have this neat version of how society operates in your head. But you and I know damn well that if the majority of Americans wanted something, they'd order their elected reps to get it done and it would become legal. The method is unimportant because the end result is always the same. This isn't anarchy, it's democracy/republicanism at its most basic level. It's even more primitive than that.

Like I said before, the King rioters got what they wanted because the cops were re-tried and convicted (isn't that double jeopardy?).

You can always find ways to back up your assertion that Mob rule is appropriate!
The King riots achieved nothing that people with cooler heads could have accomplished without violence!!

I totally agree with Don Vito Corleone`s statement-- Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.


Peace!!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

You're a lawyer so you have this neat version of how society operates in your head. But you and I know damn well that if the majority of Americans wanted something, they'd order their elected reps to get it done and it would become legal. The method is unimportant because the end result is always the same. This isn't anarchy, it's democracy/republicanism at its most basic level. It's even more primitive than that.

Like I said before, the King rioters got what they wanted because the cops were re-tried and convicted (isn't that double jeopardy?).

Any sane person who respects the Constitution and democracy can see that what you're saying is lunacy.

The King cops were tried separately under federal charges for violating King's civil rights. This is not double jeopardy.

Let's assume that the only reason they were retried was because of the riots (I consider this a nonsensical position - it's not as though the riots continued until it was announced they'd be tried federally - the riots had been over for months when this decision was made). Do you seriously believe the rioters made a planned decision to riot in order to achieve that end? Do you think they had researched the law and figured that a federal prosecution was possible? Any well person would agree the answer is no. They rioted because a) they were angry; b) they wanted free stuff, and looting offered an opportunity to steal what they chose not to earn the money to save; and c) the active rioters were simply anti-social people with no sense of consequence ("Hey, let's burn down MY neighborhood! Awesome!"). Your after-the fact effort to impute noble motives to their actions is just silliness.

The irony is that I have actually done things to prosecute police civil rights abuses and protect peoples' rights. All you've done is spout off some "power to the people" bullshit.

Thanks for walking right into my trap. I never said it was double jeopardy, I just asked. But my goal was for you to tell me about the Federal charges (which you duly did). The rioters wanted justice and they got it. You and I know damn well that the Federal government never would've gotten involved if people didn't make enough noise. Case closed.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

keep spreading that fucking lie

unless you're some kind of racist and think blacks are inferior. i should have known you're a fucking racist.

K.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. If the police adopted a "MIGHT=RIGHT" attitude, this kind of shooting would happen every weekend in Oakland - the police would become de facto death squads, like the off-duty cops who murder homeless children in Rio.

If you don't want to live in a society that operates under the rule of law, I suggest you uproot and move to Somalia - it's every man for himself there.

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

No what you are saying is totally ignorant and false......let me re-write thye above --

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people who were properly elected or appointed have the power, the police enforce the laws!. So, if they rioted, then because they are breaking the law the Police get called in to stop the riot! The elected representatives would see that and would be grateful the Police were called in to stop the riot. They would take NO action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force -- totally false). The lawa abiding people would in a civil manner approach those elected officials and state ina civil manner there is a problem could we talk about this.....

Judging by your post I would say that you are very young and have no clue how things actually work in a civilzed society!!

And I'm sure you do?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

You sure are, buddy.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

You sure are, buddy.

Ah, you really got me there!


Hey, do me a favor. When those idiots in Oakland riot, go join them. When you get shot for looting, tell the store owner or soldier "hey, this isnt criminal behavior!" :laugh:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.

You're a lawyer so you have this neat version of how society operates in your head. But you and I know damn well that if the majority of Americans wanted something, they'd order their elected reps to get it done and it would become legal. The method is unimportant because the end result is always the same. This isn't anarchy, it's democracy/republicanism at its most basic level. It's even more primitive than that.

Like I said before, the King rioters got what they wanted because the cops were re-tried and convicted (isn't that double jeopardy?).

You can always find ways to back up your assertion that Mob rule is appropriate!
The King riots achieved nothing that people with cooler heads could have accomplished without violence!!

I totally agree with Don Vito Corleone`s statement-- Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.


Peace!!

If you don't think the rioters jump-started the Federal criminal prosecution, you weren't paying attention.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

You sure are, buddy.

Ah, you really got me there!


Hey, do me a favor. When those idiots in Oakland riot, go join them. When you get shot for looting, tell the store owner or soldier "hey, this isnt criminal behavior!" :laugh:

No, I'll be the motherfucker sitting in my New York apartment watching it on my giant TV with a wry smile on my face. But I do hope to see you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

Thanks for walking right into my trap. I never said it was double jeopardy, I just asked. But my goal was for you to tell me about the Federal charges (which you duly did). The rioters wanted justice and they got it. You and I know damn well that the Federal government never would've gotten involved if people didn't make enough noise. Case closed.

Your "trap" is absurd, like the balance of your argument.

Do you believe what happened to Reginald Denny was justified, any more than what happened to Rodney King?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

You sure are, buddy.

Ah, you really got me there!


Hey, do me a favor. When those idiots in Oakland riot, go join them. When you get shot for looting, tell the store owner or soldier "hey, this isnt criminal behavior!" :laugh:

No, I'll be the motherfucker sitting in my New York apartment watching it on my giant TV with a wry smile on my face. But I do hope to see you.

How odd is that? We will both be watching it smiling!

Oakland burning would be better than the Superbowl!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

No, I'll be the motherfucker sitting in my New York apartment watching it on my giant TV with a wry smile on my face. But I do hope to see you.

I hope at least you'll have the sense to put on your Che t-shirt, Mr. Urban Guerrilla.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari


BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

LOL. Ok i'm a puss, but you are a complete moron.

You sure are, buddy.

Ah, you really got me there!


Hey, do me a favor. When those idiots in Oakland riot, go join them. When you get shot for looting, tell the store owner or soldier "hey, this isnt criminal behavior!" :laugh:

No, I'll be the motherfucker sitting in my New York apartment watching it on my giant TV with a wry smile on my face. But I do hope to see you.

How odd is that? We will both be watching it smiling!

Oakland burning would be better than the Superbowl!

G-d willing, I hope the fire consumes your neighborhood too. For that, I'll open my bottle of SYRAH PALIN.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Thanks for walking right into my trap. I never said it was double jeopardy, I just asked. But my goal was for you to tell me about the Federal charges (which you duly did). The rioters wanted justice and they got it. You and I know damn well that the Federal government never would've gotten involved if people didn't make enough noise. Case closed.

Your "trap" is absurd, like the balance of your argument.

Do you believe what happened to Reginald Denny was justified, any more than what happened to Rodney King?

Justified? That's for the courts to decide. Personally, I believe he shouldn't have gotten attacked.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

No, I'll be the motherfucker sitting in my New York apartment watching it on my giant TV with a wry smile on my face. But I do hope to see you.

I hope at least you'll have the sense to put on your Che t-shirt, Mr. Urban Guerrilla.

No Che shirt for me. Unlike what you think of me, I know Che was a murderous romantic and deserved to die. Besides, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

Justified? That's for the courts to decide. Personally, I believe he shouldn't have gotten attacked.

The courts? I thought rioting was not criminal activity. Why would the courts need to be involved?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Justified? That's for the courts to decide. Personally, I believe he shouldn't have gotten attacked.

The courts? I thought rioting was not criminal activity. Why would the courts need to be involved?

Dont try and pin this couch-warrior with his previous statements. It is fun watching the rantings of a 14 year old.

He probably made a big scene in the grocery store when his mom wouldnt let him have some candy.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Justified? That's for the courts to decide. Personally, I believe he shouldn't have gotten attacked.

The courts? I thought rioting was not criminal activity. Why would the courts need to be involved?

I never, ever said that. I said it was debatable. Government lawyers and civilian lawyers debate and the jury decides.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Justified? That's for the courts to decide. Personally, I believe he shouldn't have gotten attacked.

The courts? I thought rioting was not criminal activity. Why would the courts need to be involved?

Dont try and pin this couch-warrior with his previous statements. It is fun watching the rantings of a 14 year old.

He probably made a big scene in the grocery store when his mom wouldnt let him have some candy.

That would be you, puss.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Dari
All this discussion is academic anyways. That motherfucker is going to prison on a stupid mistake. Next time, he'll realize what powers a weapon has and carry a similar burden of responsibility when using it. Perhaps he won't be so stupid.

I don't think there will be a next time for him to legally possess a weapon.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

I never, ever said that. I said it was debatable. Government lawyers and civilian lawyers debate and the jury decides.

Under your rubric, then, it's "debatable" whether serial murder, rape of children or arson of dwellings constitute criminal conduct.

I don't see how, absent jury nullification (a concept I'm sure you adore) it is debatable whether beating Reginald Denny nearly to death or looting, are criminal conduct.

It's ironic - in a sense I see you as something very much like a chickenhawk - you advocate the righteousness of a battle you are too cowardly to fight.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I never, ever said that. I said it was debatable. Government lawyers and civilian lawyers debate and the jury decides.

Under your rubric, then, it's "debatable" whether serial murder, rape of children or arson of dwellings constitutes criminal conduct.

I don't see how, absent jury nullification (a concept I'm sure you adore) it is debatable whether beating Reginald Denny nearly to death, or looting, are criminal conduct.

It's ironic - in a sense I see you as something very much like a chickenhawk - you advocate the righteousness of a battle you are too cowardly to fight.

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I never, ever said that. I said it was debatable. Government lawyers and civilian lawyers debate and the jury decides.

Under your rubric, then, it's "debatable" whether serial murder, rape of children or arson of dwellings constitutes criminal conduct.

I don't see how, absent jury nullification (a concept I'm sure you adore) it is debatable whether beating Reginald Denny nearly to death, or looting, are criminal conduct.

It's ironic - in a sense I see you as something very much like a chickenhawk - you advocate the righteousness of a battle you are too cowardly to fight.

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

Ah, so you'd rather send poor minorities to go out and get arrested/shot for rioting instead?

Big man, you are!

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Dari
snip -Everything I've said in this thread-

Usually you're a pretty smart guy. You on drugs today? Because nigh everything you've said in this thread is pretty out there for you.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I never, ever said that. I said it was debatable. Government lawyers and civilian lawyers debate and the jury decides.

Under your rubric, then, it's "debatable" whether serial murder, rape of children or arson of dwellings constitutes criminal conduct.

I don't see how, absent jury nullification (a concept I'm sure you adore) it is debatable whether beating Reginald Denny nearly to death, or looting, are criminal conduct.

It's ironic - in a sense I see you as something very much like a chickenhawk - you advocate the righteousness of a battle you are too cowardly to fight.

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

Ah, so you'd rather send poor minorities to go out and get arrested/shot for rioting instead?

Big man, you are!

If they chose that route I wouldn't stop them. Sometimes, the usage of force is necessary to get people's attention. I have never been harrassed by police in my lifetime and I've always taken the legal route whenever something happens. But if justice was constantly denied to me I would take it into my own hands.