Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Oregon is Lost.
Comments
-
H defends EVERYTHING
-
Just water - Andy just complains about water
Calm down gals
-
I get black eyes and broken skin around my eyes every time I shower.
Doesn't everyone? It's just water. -
It wasn't an accident that he knocked Ngo's phone out of his hand and then physically took the phone from Ngo. When you take something from someone by force to deprive them of the ability to use that item that is per se criminal intent. The judge just ignored the law and then lied. It wasn't an accident that the defendant wasn't charged with assault. This was a political decision, not a legal decision based on the clear facts of the case.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. -
Unless they're Canadian truckers.RaceBannon said:H defends EVERYTHING
-
Wrong incident, Einstein.MikeDamone said:Just water - Andy just complains about water
Calm down gals
Apparently Andy is the Sled of his world. Everyone wants to kill him. -
You seem to be bothered by him.HHusky said:
Wrong incident, Einstein.MikeDamone said:Just water - Andy just complains about water
Calm down gals
Apparently Andy is the Sled of his world. Everyone wants to kill him. -
Gargle those Antifa balls Dazzler.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. -
You owe Damone money?hardhat said:
You seem to be bothered by him.HHusky said:
Wrong incident, Einstein.MikeDamone said:Just water - Andy just complains about water
Calm down gals
Apparently Andy is the Sled of his world. Everyone wants to kill him. -
He defended AB's murder in the capitol. If he thinks that whole thing is over, well he's going to be in for a surprise.RaceBannon said:H defends EVERYTHING
