God says to execute the Ferguson protesters

[shagster01]

And those witnesses statements were shown to be contradictory within themselves and their other statements shown to be lies - like he was shot in the back, and shot while on the ground with the officer standing over him, or proven they couldnt even have seen anything....

but 8 witnesses stories completely match the forensic evidence, yet you want to believe THEY are the lying ones? wow.

I've not called anyone a liar. Well, except for Nick.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't think you've been following here because I have defended the cop's right to shoot many times.

I'm just pointing out that "not enough evidence to prosecute" does not equal "found innocent. " it also does not equal "false witness" as Nick claims.

Well yes, false witness is one who claims he was shot in the back with his hands up.

Also, lets say he went to actual trial, being found not guilty also doesnt = found innocent, because the person is already to be assumed innocent by default unless found guilty, so yes the officer is innocent - even if you dont like it.

 

[shagster01]

Well yes, false witness is one who claims he was shot in the back with his hands up.

Also, lets say he went to actual trial, being found not guilty also doesnt = found innocent, because the person is already to be assumed innocent by default unless found guilty, so yes the officer is innocent - even if you dont like it.

Ok, then OJ and Scott Peterson are innocent too, right?

 

[glorydaz]

I know. With any common sense she'd have know that the dude was shot away from where that particular struggle took place.
The struggle took place at the car. Witnesses claim he put his hands up AFTER they moved away from the car. Now who can raise their hands in that amount of time, right?

Silly shaggy....she does know. It's you that seems confused.

See, you don't listen...which is why you're left to make up your own "facts". How many altercations does a robber get before he gets stopped? How many tries at a cop's gun? The grand jury heard and considered each step. So, you are only making yourself look like a dummy. Sad to have to tell you that.


You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. That's why a grand jury was impaneled instead of leaving it up to a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who were hoping to grab a tv from out a burning building regardless of the finding. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

Ok, then OJ and Scott Peterson are innocent too, right?

You have got to be a liberal. There is no other excuse for the leap you just made.

 

[shagster01]

You have got to be a liberal. There is no other excuse for the leap you just made.

I took it right from Nick earlier where he compared the two. Do you consider Nick a liberal?

 

[glorydaz]

I've not called anyone a liar.

Good for you. :thumb:

Well, except for Nick.

Oops.....the rest of the story. Dog gone those facts.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ok, then OJ and Scott Peterson are innocent too, right?

According to the definition in the law, yes.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Good for you. :thumb:







Oops.....the rest of the story. Dog gone those facts.

:rotfl:

 

[glorydaz]

Because a bunch of witness are very clearly lying. That was the point the StL County Attorney in the press conference was making without saying it. Are you really this stupid? OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson said they did not kill their ex-wife/wife. They are lying too. And I can say that with absolute authority.

I don't think you've been following here because I have defended the cop's right to shoot many times.

I'm just pointing out that "not enough evidence to prosecute" does not equal "found innocent. " it also does not equal "false witness" as Nick claims.

Ok, then OJ and Scott Peterson are innocent too, right?

I took it right from Nick earlier where he compared the two. Do you consider Nick a liberal?

My goodness. Nick did NOT....I repeat....DID NOT....claim what you seem to think he claimed. I've read his statement several times and I can't figure out, for the life of me, what you are suggesting. :nono:

A person can LIE about what they saw, and that makes them a false witness. So, you did not "take it right from Nick" because he was not comparing apples and oranges as you're trying to do. Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote instead of what you think he wrote.....if what you think he wrote is NOT what he actually wrote then YOU are a FALSE WITNESS. There is actual evidence we can look at...just as there was actual evidence the grand jury looked at. They threw out all the testimony that did not match the facts. No slick defense attorney was able to cloud the issue with gloves that didn't fit and cries of racist cop. Thank God this didn't go to a regular jury with high priced "experts" and jurors who wanted to write a book.

 

[glorydaz]

According to the definition in the law, yes.

OJ yes, but Shag is confused about Scott Peterson. He was found guilty....slime ball that he is.

 

[shagster01]

OJ yes, but Shag is confused about Scott Peterson. He was found guilty....slime ball that he is.

You are correct. My apologies. I was thinking of a different case.

 

[Angel4Truth]

OJ yes, but Shag is confused about Scott Peterson. He was found guilty....slime ball that he is.

OJ was found guilty too at his civil trial. I know what Shag was trying to do, but as a matter of a law, everyone is innocent untill they are proven guilty, but Shag doesnt seem to understand the distinction in the law, no one is found innocent even if they are found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesnt mean innocent, innocence is already assumed, which is why the burden is on the court, not the defendant.

The officer never had to prove himself innocent, the state is who was required to prove him guilty. Since none of that happened, he is still innocent as a matter of law.

 

[glorydaz]

And those witnesses statements were shown to be contradictory within themselves and their other statements shown to be lies - like he was shot in the back, and shot while on the ground with the officer standing over him, or proven they couldnt even have seen anything....

but 8 witnesses stories completely match the forensic evidence, yet you want to believe THEY are the lying ones? wow.

Exactly. All black, by the way, AND matched the cop's version as well as the forensic evidence. No case should be brought to trial when there is NO evidence to do so. The race baiters would bankrupt this country in no time, if that was the case. Well, if Obama hadn't done that already, that is.

 

[glorydaz]

OJ was found guilty too at his civil trial. I know what Shag was trying to do, but as a matter of a law, everyone is innocent untill they are proven guilty, but Shag doesnt seem to understand the distinction in the law, no one is found innocent even if they are found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesnt mean innocent, innocence is already assumed, which is why the burden is on the court, not the defendant.

The officer never had to prove himself innocent, the state is who was required to prove him guilty. Since none of that happened, he is still innocent as a matter of law.

:thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

You are correct. My apologies. I was thinking of a different case.

No problem. There was another Peterson....he pushed his wife down the stairs (well two wives as it turned out), but he was found guilty, too. I used to love to watch trials on court tv....until they let off Phil Spector. At least they re-tried him and he was found guilty.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Exactly. All black, by the way, AND matched the cop's version as well as the forensic evidence. No case should be brought to trial when there is NO evidence to do so. The race baiters would bankrupt this country in no time, if that was the case. Well, if Obama hadn't done that already, that is.

You nailed it. :thumb:

 

[shagster01]

OJ was found guilty too at his civil trial. I know what Shag was trying to do, but as a matter of a law, everyone is innocent untill they are proven guilty, but Shag doesnt seem to understand the distinction in the law, no one is found innocent even if they are found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesnt mean innocent, innocence is already assumed, which is why the burden is on the court, not the defendant.

The officer never had to prove himself innocent, the state is who was required to prove him guilty. Since none of that happened, he is still innocent as a matter of law.

I do agree with this Angel. This is really what I've been saying. And my point along with this is that without absolute proof of innocence via video or something of the like, there can be no guilty verdict of false witness. We can not prove that those witnesses intentionally lied without reasonable doubt.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I do agree with this Angel. This is really what I've been saying.....

No, it isnt.

And my point along with this is that without absolute proof of innocence via video or something of the like

You just proved that isnt what youve been saying - because you are again seeking proof of innocence, which shows you still dont get it. Innocence doesnt have to be proven, guilt does.

there can be no guilty verdict of false witness. We can not prove that those witnesses intentionally lied without reasonable doubt.

yes, people can be found guilty of perjury, after they are charged and go to trial. They should be charged, after all that is what they wanted to happen to Officer Wilson - and that is what real justice is. An even weight.

 

[shagster01]

My goodness. Nick did NOT....I repeat....DID NOT....claim what you seem to think he claimed. I've read his statement several times and I can't figure out, for the life of me, what you are suggesting. :nono:

A person can LIE about what they saw, and that makes them a false witness. So, you did not "take it right from Nick" because he was not comparing apples and oranges as you're trying to do. Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote instead of what you think he wrote.....if what you think he wrote is NOT what he actually wrote then YOU are a FALSE WITNESS. There is actual evidence we can look at...just as there was actual evidence the grand jury looked at. They threw out all the testimony that did not match the facts. No slick defense attorney was able to cloud the issue with gloves that didn't fit and cries of racist cop. Thank God this didn't go to a regular jury with high priced "experts" and jurors who wanted to write a book.

I took from Nick the fact that he says OJ is guilty, asking Angel if she felt the same since she said not guilty means we can assume innocence. Get it?

if what you think he wrote is NOT what he actually wrote then YOU are a FALSE WITNESS.

And what should my punishment be for this misunderstanding?