Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Serious answer, because Oregon is lost. We have a Soros DA. Imagine I show up at the dazzler alleged office and pour a bottle of water over his head, knock his phone out of his hand, damaging it and then after he retrieves the phone I physically take it away from him and he would be fine with that because? Everyone in antifa knows who Ngo is and they hate him and have assaulted and chased him several times. The DA and judge know who he is and they let the defendant off because they want Ngo silenced. Just don't call antifa the Stasi of the dem party. They hate the truth.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
That’s the thing. Even if he’s found guilty, the phone is probably valued at under $1000. That’s a misdemeanor I believe. I could be wrong.
The biggest wrong is not charging him for assault. That’s the corrupt part. The robbery verdict is meaningless, as the lack of an assault charge is proof enough of a scared, cowardly, and corrupt Portland justice system.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
In Kali and pretty much everywhere else, robbery is defined as the theft of property via force or fear. Seems we had all the elements of the crime but a cowardly judge who didn't want his home burned down.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
Did the judge throw out the assault charge? Or was it even argued?
Provocation is no defense unless the defendants health was in jeopardy. I could call your wife a cunt to your face and if you punch me, it’s still assault.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Again, I don’t know why you guys arguing this. This seems like a misdemeanor at worst. Dazzler, can you explain why an assault charge wasn’t made?
In Kali and pretty much everywhere else, robbery is defined as the theft of property via force or fear. Seems we had all the elements of the crime but a cowardly judge who didn't want his home burned down.
Beats listening to the judge recite the elements of the crime alleged, of course.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Again, I don’t know why you guys arguing this. This seems like a misdemeanor at worst. Dazzler, can you explain why an assault charge wasn’t made?
My assumption is that an assault charge on these facts would also have been a misdemeanor. For all we know, it was charged and it appears to have been largely admitted. But I don’t know whether it was or not.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Again, I don’t know why you guys arguing this. This seems like a misdemeanor at worst. Dazzler, can you explain why an assault charge wasn’t made?
Btw, just checked the Oregon statute. Robbery in the third degree is a felony. Also it seems as if the assault could have been separately charged as a lesser included offense (?).Tactical decision by the prosecutor? Hindsight is 2020, as they say.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Again, I don’t know why you guys arguing this. This seems like a misdemeanor at worst. Dazzler, can you explain why an assault charge wasn’t made?
Btw, just checked the Oregon statute. Robbery in the third degree is a felony. Also it seems as if the assault could have been separately charged as a lesser included offense (?).Tactical political decision by the prosecutor? Hindsight is 2020, as they say.
If Ngo was a leftist his attackers over the years would all be charged with hate crimes. Beating a right wing gay Asian…no problemo. Beating a leftist gay Asian…now we have a problem.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Again, I don’t know why you guys arguing this. This seems like a misdemeanor at worst. Dazzler, can you explain why an assault charge wasn’t made?
Btw, just checked the Oregon statute. Robbery in the third degree is a felony. Also it seems as if the assault could have been separately charged as a lesser included offense (?).Tactical political decision by the prosecutor? Hindsight is 2020, as they say.
This is where Gasbag pretends he wouldn't have criticized charging the lesser included offense. He's lying, per usual.
If Ngo was a leftist his attackers over the years would all be charged with hate crimes. Beating a right wing gay Asian…no problemo. Beating a leftist gay Asian…now we have a problem.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.
The outcome is not the issue, you fucking idiot. It's the Judge's reasoning throughout his explanation as to how he reached his verdict. I'm not impressed with your "See Dick. See Dick run. See Dick run after the ball" level of legal analysis. It's as tedious and unrevealing as anything else you poast.
I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on a sack-of-shit pettifogger like you.
At the end of the day Dazzler shows once again that he's an Antifa ball licker.
AB deserved to be shot dead for climbing through a broken window. She was endangering NO ONE. Dazzler agreed with her murder. As did all of the other shitty human beings.
If Ngo was a leftist his attackers over the years would all be charged with hate crimes. Beating a right wing gay Asian…no problemo. Beating a leftist gay Asian…now we have a problem.
Sounds like he poured water over him.
Take a Midol, Madge.
#Beating!
Yeah…water. You fucking idiot. And re read my post dumb fuck.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.
The outcome is not the issue, you fucking idiot. It's the Judge's reasoning throughout his explanation as to how he reached his verdict. I'm not impressed with your "See Dick. See Dick run. See Dick run after the ball" level of legal analysis. It's as tedious and unrevealing as anything else you poast.
I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on a sack-of-shit pettifogger like you.
He's the jury, dimwit. He has a doubt as to an element of the crime. He cannot possibly be wrong about the fact of his own doubt.
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.
The outcome is not the issue, you fucking idiot. It's the Judge's reasoning throughout his explanation as to how he reached his verdict. I'm not impressed with your "See Dick. See Dick run. See Dick run after the ball" level of legal analysis. It's as tedious and unrevealing as anything else you poast.
I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on a sack-of-shit pettifogger like you.
He's the jury, dimwit. He has a doubt as to an element of the crime. He cannot possibly be wrong about the fact of his own doubt.
Acquittal is mandatory.
Update: Missing the Entire Point by a MILLION miles.
Comments
The biggest wrong is not charging him for assault. That’s the corrupt part. The robbery verdict is meaningless, as the lack of an assault charge is proof enough of a scared, cowardly, and corrupt Portland justice system.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
In Kali and pretty much everywhere else, robbery is defined as the theft of property via force or fear. Seems we had all the elements of the crime but a cowardly judge who didn't want his home burned down.
Provocation is no defense unless the defendants health was in jeopardy. I could call your wife a cunt to your face and if you punch me, it’s still assault.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Take a Midol, Madge.
#Beating!
The outcome is not the issue, you fucking idiot. It's the Judge's reasoning throughout his explanation as to how he reached his verdict. I'm not impressed with your "See Dick. See Dick run. See Dick run after the ball" level of legal analysis. It's as tedious and unrevealing as anything else you poast.
I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on a sack-of-shit pettifogger like you.
AB deserved to be shot dead for climbing through a broken window. She was endangering NO ONE. Dazzler agreed with her murder. As did all of the other shitty human beings.
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journalist-andy-ngo-violently-assaulted-by-antifa-protesters/519A71E1-7C02-44E7-913B-EBC3F3B79560.html
Acquittal is mandatory.
@HHusky's Retardation Confirmed.