You have a lot to learn, though I'm afraid you can't teach an old dog new tricks - especially one who believes he knows all there is to learn.
Well so far, I have learned how to get through life without drugs or a criminal record. How bout you?Jaekus wrote:
You have a lot to learn, though I'm afraid you can't teach an old dog new tricks - especially one who believes he knows all there is to learn.
I've learned you can understand a lot more when you attempt to look at life with more than one point of view.
Funny how you say that, but for my POV I get insulted and called names. Is that irony?Jaekus wrote:
I've learned you can understand a lot more when you attempt to look at life with more than one point of view.
Sorry, I don't need the point of view of a crackhead, meth-head or someone that is willing to shoot another person in order to take something that does not belong to them.
It's not your opinion, you're arguing as if it is fact whilst ignoring all the facts.
You can't play it both ways, yet you seem to, and it's obvious to all this is the case.
You can't play it both ways, yet you seem to, and it's obvious to all this is the case.
no, I am arguing the circumstances that make up the facts. I am not ignoring anything. What you are ignoring is the fact that I already told you that.Jaekus wrote:
It's not your opinion, you're arguing as if it is fact whilst ignoring all the facts.
You can't play it both ways, yet you seem to, and it's obvious to all this is the case.
What, the fact he premeditated the murder?
nope, the circumstances that lead up to the shooting of that criminal.Jaekus wrote:
What, the fact he premeditated the murder?
You disagree with the jury, who heard the actual facts of the case.
What I've found is unless you actually attend court and hear a case for yourself you receive a very distorted account.
Pretty much nothing I've ever been involved in which has been reported by the the press borne any real relation to what actually happened.
Worth bearing in mind when you're getting excited about what you've seen on TV.
What I've found is unless you actually attend court and hear a case for yourself you receive a very distorted account.
Pretty much nothing I've ever been involved in which has been reported by the the press borne any real relation to what actually happened.
Worth bearing in mind when you're getting excited about what you've seen on TV.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
couldn't agree more Dilbert, but I am not the one getting excited bout any of this.Dilbert_X wrote:
You disagree with the jury, who heard the actual facts of the case.
What I've found is unless you actually attend court and hear a case for yourself you receive a very distorted account.
Pretty much nothing I've ever been involved in which has been reported by the the press borne any real relation to what actually happened.
Worth bearing in mind when you're getting excited about what you've seen on TV.
lowing, you're agreeing with (essentially) what I said earlier--which you disagreed with, IIRC.lowing wrote:
couldn't agree more Dilbert, but I am not the one getting excited bout any of this.Dilbert_X wrote:
You disagree with the jury, who heard the actual facts of the case.
What I've found is unless you actually attend court and hear a case for yourself you receive a very distorted account.
Pretty much nothing I've ever been involved in which has been reported by the the press borne any real relation to what actually happened.
Worth bearing in mind when you're getting excited about what you've seen on TV.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, you were saying there is nothing to discuss, because the experts already decided. Dilbert is not saying that. Since none of us have all the facts of the case, and it is only opinion we are discussing, then we are all on a level playing field with our opinions and are open for discussion.FEOS wrote:
lowing, you're agreeing with (essentially) what I said earlier--which you disagreed with, IIRC.lowing wrote:
couldn't agree more Dilbert, but I am not the one getting excited bout any of this.Dilbert_X wrote:
You disagree with the jury, who heard the actual facts of the case.
What I've found is unless you actually attend court and hear a case for yourself you receive a very distorted account.
Pretty much nothing I've ever been involved in which has been reported by the the press borne any real relation to what actually happened.
Worth bearing in mind when you're getting excited about what you've seen on TV.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-03 04:14:27)
Except the fact the guy was convicted, lol.
This coming from a guy that does not want to execute murderers because they might be wrongly convicted?Jaekus wrote:
Except the fact the guy was convicted, lol.
Two wrongs don't make a right, derp.
no but you are not allowing for the fact that the jury might have got the conviction wrong in the OP, and thus worthy of a discussion.Jaekus wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right, derp.
not very consistent of you Jaekus.
Where did I argue the guy should be executed?
You are pulling shit out of nowhere because that is how you roll.
You are pulling shit out of nowhere because that is how you roll.
No, I didn't, lowing.lowing wrote:
No, you were saying there is nothing to discuss, because the experts already decided. Dilbert is not saying that. Since none of us have all the facts of the case, and it is only opinion we are discussing, then we are all on a level playing field with our opinions and are open for discussion.FEOS wrote:
lowing, you're agreeing with (essentially) what I said earlier--which you disagreed with, IIRC.lowing wrote:
couldn't agree more Dilbert, but I am not the one getting excited bout any of this.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
no but you are not allowing for the fact that the jury might have got the conviction wrong in the OP, and thus worthy of a discussion.Jaekus wrote:
Where did I argue the guy should be executed?
You are pulling shit out of nowhere because that is how you roll.
not very consistent of you Jaekus. <------ this because your entire argument has been "he was convicted"
Actually I've just pointed to the facts as to why it did lead to a conviction.
How is the jury going to get the conviction wrong when there is CCTV footage and he is undoubtedly the person who shot the kid, multiple times, with his own gun, in his own store?
Wrong again. Very consistent of you lowing.
How is the jury going to get the conviction wrong when there is CCTV footage and he is undoubtedly the person who shot the kid, multiple times, with his own gun, in his own store?
Wrong again. Very consistent of you lowing.
andI pointed to the circumstances surrounding those facts. Something you refused to consider. There has never been a question about the fact that he shot that criminal. What has always been in question for my argument is what happened that drove him to it.Jaekus wrote:
Actually I've just pointed to the facts as to why it did lead to a conviction.
How is the jury going to get the conviction wrong when there is CCTV footage and he is undoubtedly the person who shot the kid, multiple times, with his own gun, in his own store?
Wrong again. Very consistent of you lowing.
Something you're not considering is the fact that these points were argued in court and he was still convicted.
Checkmate.
Checkmate.
which brings me back to the start that juries must never wrongly convict then correct? Cases are never reopened, innocent people are never found guilty, and there is no room to discuss any of it, because they are convicted? So, which is it? Guilty is guilty never to be discussed or people can be wrongly convicted and the circumstances surrounding their conviction can be discussed?Jaekus wrote:
Something you're not considering is the fact that these points were argued in court and he was still convicted.
Checkmate.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-03 05:20:46)
Thats probaly the biggest no-brainer in the world.lowing wrote:
This coming from a guy that does not want to execute murderers because they might be wrongly convicted?Jaekus wrote:
Except the fact the guy was convicted, lol.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
put it in context with the discussion Dilbert, would ya please.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats probaly the biggest no-brainer in the world.lowing wrote:
This coming from a guy that does not want to execute murderers because they might be wrongly convicted?Jaekus wrote:
Except the fact the guy was convicted, lol.