@Cycloptichorn,
You get a pass for "argue on behalf of...." any kind of criminal, when addressed to me; your bride - whom I do not know, but who cannot possibly be a bigger pest than you - is the sole reason for this pass. Now go, and show more precision after you've come back from your honeymoon
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
You get a pass for "argue on behalf of...." any kind of criminal, when addressed to me; your bride - whom I do not know, but who cannot possibly be a bigger pest than you - is the sole reason for this pass. Now go, and show more precision after you've come back from your honeymoon
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you have been doing in this thread. And surely you are aware of this fact?
Perhaps you should go back and re-read your posts here, if you think you have not been doing this.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
YOU go back and do cut-and-paste to prove your assertion. Nobody defended either lot of criminals - excluding Brown-Munoz, who did defend the drug dealers involved; but nobody else. Unsupported statements are useless.
@High Seas,
A 9 year old girl was shot, and killed, late at night in her own house. The armed Minutemen, who had broken into her house, had no reason or right to be there.
Whether any of the victims was a drug dealer is completely irrelevant.
These people are home invaders and dangerous extremists.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
YOU go back and do cut-and-paste to prove your assertion. Nobody defended either lot of criminals - excluding Brown-Munoz, who did defend the drug dealers involved; but nobody else. Unsupported statements are useless.
Surely you meant to say 'alleged' drug dealers? I note that your fur gets raised when the marauders are referred to as murderers, but you have no care whatsoever for the rights of those whose home was invaded to not be falsely labeled criminals. You're not really doing a good job establishing your dispassionate impartiality with comments like this.
I feel no desire whatsoever to prove anything to you at all; it would not be a productive use of my time. If you wish to believe you are being even-handed and not taking the side of people who broke into someone's house with the intent of robbing and killing them, it's fine with me.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Nonsense, Cyclo - and a complete lack of reading comprehension, legal precision, and just plain honesty. I'm not responding to you again unless and UNTIL you come back with actual QUOTES to support your wild CONJECTURES. Good bye, and all the best for your wedding.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Nonsense, Cyclo - and a complete lack of reading comprehension, legal precision, and just plain honesty. I'm not responding to you again unless and UNTIL you come back with actual QUOTES to support your wild CONJECTURES. Good bye, and all the best for your wedding.
Imagine my disappointment, that you won't respond to me again. Whatever
will I do?
I maintain my assertion that your willingness to defend the killers in this case - likely born out of anti-immigrant sentiment on your part - does not reflect well upon you.
Cycloptichorn
@High Seas,
Yes, and I said the prosecutor could try to charge the surviving parent. It would however be very hard to prove and likely a complete waste of resources.
The selling of drugs isn't what caused the death. It was the defense of their home that did. While the persons may have been in possession of drugs they weren't currently selling them so it would be difficult to argue that the act of having drugs was a danger to the child and caused the child's death by gunfire.
Cyclopitchorn wrote:
Imagine my disappointment, that you won't respond to me again. Whatever will I do?
I maintain my assertion that your willingness to defend the killers in this case - likely born out of anti-immigrant sentiment on your part - does not reflect well upon you.
Cycloptichorn .
******************************************************************
Now I must confess that I have completely changed the way I view Cycloptichorn. I read the thread in which he announced his wedding and viewed the pictures of himself, his bride and his family.
I thought that Cyclopitchorn was a morose, middle aged, myopic, aging hippie.
How wrong I was. The pictures show a lovely bride and Cyclopitchorn, tall, good looking and hirsute. A nice couple.
I wish them all the happiness.
BUT, it is clear that Cyclops is just a kid. He hasn't even finished his graduate work. Most of us on this thread( if we attended graduate school) are finished with our advanced degreees)
He is young--very young. I am sure that he has never met a payroll.
He may be relatively well read for a young man his age but it is impossible for him to have read and assimilated the number of books that many on these threads have.
I am astonished that a graduate student, like Cyclopitchorn,does not show us his learning and research by referring to books he has pondered and studies he has perused.
Therefore, I must reluctantly conclude that any serious discussion with Cyclopitchorn will forever be weighed down by the unavoidable fact that he is just a KID--practically an Adolescent whose callow youth renders his pronouncements invalid and puerile.
Sorry, Kid, finish your degree, ponder what you have learned and then come back to debate!!!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
High Seas-Please don't be too hard on the boy. He's just a stripling!
