Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm seeing a lot of people defending this woman with regard to her eco-terror background with statements like, "she's innocent until proven guilty," and "she was only charged and hasn't been convicted [yet]".
Yet those very same people have already reached the conclusion that the accused in the case at hand is guilty.
I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious and transparent demonstration of hypocrisy in my several years here. What an amazing thread this is.
Carry on...
It's a little thing called video, maybe you have heard of it. When I see video of a guy stomping on someone's head while they are being held down, the presumption of innocence has been rendered moot.
Perhaps you could explain to me what her background has to do with the crime the guy committed? Are you trying to say that anyone that has ever been charged with a crime is fair game for beatings and assaults?
I have never seen so many people so willing to twist logic to avoid admitting that this particular teabagger is a criminal scumbag.
I can't find anything in my copy of the Bill of Rights that says constitutional protections can be revoked if you alter your appearance or carry a sign without approved content. You must have a special tea party version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco
What in the world are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with the rights granted and protected by the 1st Amendment. I think you are more than just a little confused.
I'm not at all confused. The 1st amendment protects ones right to speech, no one stopped the woman from speech, or carrying her sign. It does not say you get to carry your sign where you want, when you want, regardless of other individuals rights.
I'm not defending her, merely stating that according to the law, her background cannot be deemed by a judge or a jury as due cause for Proffit having a free pass if he indeed did use uneccessary force in attempting to restrain her.
I am hoping it will get into the intent of her being there after she has been caught lying about the case already on tape.
A third party has a right to step in an protect someone else so I guess we will see how the judge or jury see's this.
I still believe there was no intent to cause her harm.
It's a little thing called video, maybe you have heard of it. When I see video of a guy stomping on someone's head while they are being held down, the presumption of innocence has been rendered moot.
I stopped here for the sake of accuracy. The guy didnt stop on anyones head.. If you keep talking about the video, then you would know this..
It's a little thing called video, maybe you have heard of it. When I see video of a guy stomping on someone's head while they are being held down, the presumption of innocence has been rendered moot.
Perhaps you could explain to me what her background has to do with the crime the guy committed? Are you trying to say that anyone that has ever been charged with a crime is fair game for beatings and assaults?
I have never seen so many people so willing to twist logic to avoid admitting that this particular teabagger is a criminal scumbag.
So now you are saying he is a criminal?
How, was he found guilty today or something we do not know?
Then you have the nerve to ask me to prove to you if the real criminal ( Soros puppet ) has a criminal record.
I am hoping it will get into the intent of her being there after she has been caught lying about the case already on tape.
A third party has a right to step in an protect someone else so I guess we will see how the judge or jury see's this.
I still believe there was no intent to cause her harm.
That would pertain more to any charges filed against her in this matter, and there don't seem to have been any. If she had been charged with even something as small as trespass, intent would be a factor. Even more so if she had been found to have been an actual threat to Mr. Paul or anyone else there.
In these little assault cases, intent isn't relevant. They're usually pretty cut and dried.
It's a little thing called video, maybe you have heard of it. When I see video of a guy stomping on someone's head while they are being held down, the presumption of innocence has been rendered moot.
Perhaps you could explain to me what her background has to do with the crime the guy committed? Are you trying to say that anyone that has ever been charged with a crime is fair game for beatings and assaults?
I have never seen so many people so willing to twist logic to avoid admitting that this particular teabagger is a criminal scumbag.
That is not for you to decide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
