Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Oregon is Lost.
Comments
-
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? -
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.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? -
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.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?
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. -
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. -
Since Dazzler knows zero actual law I'll explain.
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. -
Did the judge throw out the assault charge? Or was it even argued?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.
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. -
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.
-
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. -
Beats listening to the judge recite the elements of the crime alleged, of course.Sledog said:Since Dazzler knows zero actual law I'll explain.
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. -
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.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.
