Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Oregon is Lost.
Comments
-
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.greenblood said:
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?HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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. -
HHusky said:
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 (?).greenblood said:
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?HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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.Tacticalpolitical 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.
-
This is where Gasbag pretends he wouldn't have criticized charging the lesser included offense. He's lying, per usual.WestlinnDuck said:HHusky said:
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 (?).greenblood said:
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?HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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.Tacticalpolitical decision by the prosecutor? Hindsight is 2020, as they say. -
Sounds like he poured water over him.MikeDamone said: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.
Take a Midol, Madge.
#Beating! -
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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.
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. -
Yeah…water. You fucking idiot. And re read my post dumb fuck.HHusky said:
Sounds like he poured water over him.MikeDamone said: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.
Take a Midol, Madge.
#Beating!
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journalist-andy-ngo-violently-assaulted-by-antifa-protesters/519A71E1-7C02-44E7-913B-EBC3F3B79560.html -
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.TurdBomber said:
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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.
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.
Acquittal is mandatory. -
Update: Missing the Entire Point by a MILLION miles.HHusky said:
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.TurdBomber said:
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.HHusky said:
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.TurdBomber said:
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.SFGbob said:
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.greenblood said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
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.
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.
Acquittal is mandatory.
@HHusky's Retardation Confirmed.
