NationStates Jolt Archive

*snip*

I love that. It's the creationist misunderstanding of prove. Can I EVIDENCE that you did not give him the presumption of innocence? Well, I could start with the FACT that you don't understand what the presumption of innocence is. However, I'll play this game only because it amuses me.

First post -
my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

You started with "IF". It's presumptive. The proper wording would have been "since". The difference is not subtle. You questioned his version of the events. But I'll admit by itself, weak evidence. I'll continue.

in 2000-2001? with the popularty of Cell Phones and cordless phones? why wasn't the daughter on the line?
and remember, he testified that he was "waiting, hoping they would just go away."
well, I dunno about you, but I would be waiting, hoping and dialing 911.
When given alternatives, you just made up how he COULD have called, whether you knew it or not. That's not based on evidence. It's assumption that is unsupported altogether, and thus doesn't give the presumption of innocent.

This once again intentionally calls into question his version of the events, suggesting that his not calling 911 questions his innocence. Wild speculation doesn't isn't the presumption of innocence. Yes, I know you don't understand, but, honestly, you're assuming things and pretending they hold.

But here's the really damming evidence.

take his scenario. if they were hoods who wanted to do him and his daughter harm, the 911 call could weigh in that he defended himself. because it turned out to be cops, the 911 call would show that he didn't know who they were and reacted out of self defense, supporting his version of what happened.
You suggest an innocent man should create a trail to prove he's innocent.

Shall I show the number of times you make similar suggestions?

Including things about the lights, hollering out, etc.

Some of these are just questions but they don't give the presumption of innocence.

Want me to show you? If you're really not a child molester, why don't you provide me with your DNA evidence? What? I just asked a question. I didn't say you ARE a child molestor. I just asked why IF you're not, you didn't offer your DNA. It certainly doesn't presume innocence. It suggests you should evidence your innocence, not that it's presumed.


There's even a better one -
We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.
I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home.
and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.

See, this response says that because he didn't do those things it wasn't self-defense. See, that's what "thus" means.

But is that an accurate way of looking at it?

Not really. It's as far apart as two separate systems can be within a single government.

Well, particularly when even you don't exactly trust that system. We hear from cops (and stupid cop dramas) that IA is completely political that treats innocent and guilty cops the same. We need to believe there is a system that polices the police in order for the police to be trusted.

I trust them to try to hang me from the tallest tree every time. However, when you ask if I "trust" them, as to ask if I would agree with their judgment on things, then no I do not. But I have "trust" in what they will do, because it's what they do every time.

Usually, it's pretty cut and dried who shot whom, or who beat whom. What's not cut and dried is the motive or circumstances that led up to it. Hence, if Joe shot the suspect who reaches into his jacket to get his cell phone, Joe says "I thought he was going for a gun" and IA says "You knew he was going for a cell phone. You shot him because of X." They question and argue about it for a while, and go to the DA with basically the same positions as they both started with.

That has been my personal experience on shootings cases I have seen/dealt with.

I can't say if IA is all that political. I don't think so, not from what I've seen. But, then again, I've never been involved in a real high-media-attention type of investigation, either.

Not really. It's as far apart as two separate systems can be within a single government.

Then the first step to overcome that stumbling block would be to make sure that people know that if the police overdo it, they don't have to rely on the police to fix it. Fear and mistrust is often justified by experience or ignorance. Take out the ignorance, and I'd say that's about half your problem solved right there.

Then the first step to overcome that stumbling block would be to make sure that people know that if the police overdo it, they don't have to rely on the police to fix it. Fear and mistrust is often justified by experience or ignorance. Take out the ignorance, and I'd say that's about half your problem solved right there.

I'm perfectly comfortable with IA investigating. The part I'm not comfortable with is the blue line. It's natural for people to look out for their coworkers, but the perception there is that they cover things up. It's in their interest to keep things transparent.

I love that. It's the creationist misunderstanding of prove. Can I EVIDENCE that you did not give him the presumption of innocence? Well, I could start with the FACT that you don't understand what the presumption of innocence is. However, I'll play this game only because it amuses me.

First post -
my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

You started with "IF". It's presumptive. The proper wording would have been "since". The difference is not subtle. You questioned his version of the events. But I'll admit by itself, weak evidence. I'll continue.Ok, so this proo... sorry EVIDENCE is based on the use of the word IF.

how long did Cory wait. HE stated that he waited. how long?

do you know? was it a couple of seconds? a couple of minutes? "If" is used as a conditional that could indicate disbelief in cory's account but could also indicate an uncertainly in details such as the length of time.

unfortunatly Jocabia. All this proves is that you are looking at the letter of the post and not what the post is saying. now Jocabia will try to switch the topic to argue that posts don't 'talk' and thus cannot 'say anything'.

in 2000-2001? with the popularty of Cell Phones and cordless phones? why wasn't the daughter on the line?
and remember, he testified that he was "waiting, hoping they would just go away."
well, I dunno about you, but I would be waiting, hoping and dialing 911.

When given alternatives, you just made up how he COULD have called, whether you knew it or not. That's not based on evidence. It's assumption that is unsupported altogether, and thus doesn't give the presumption of innocent. ok, now show where I presented that Assumption as supported.

also, note the line "I would be waiting hoping and dialing." that would show that I am only asking why not making any accusations.

now your post. and my reply.
(and since your first piece of evidence shows that things have to be in a certain way and worded correctly for you to understand, my reply is in red.)
Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room.unknown. which is why I said 'could be' to nobel hobos.
I admit that my assumption/speculation cannot be proven with what is given.

This once again intentionally calls into question his version of the events, suggesting that his not calling 911 questions his innocence. Wild speculation doesn't isn't the presumption of innocence. Yes, I know you don't understand, but, honestly, you're assuming things and pretending they hold. No it doesn't. all I did was ask a question. most times the response to someone trying to break in is to call 911.

Others responded that it was possible that he didn't think about it, others responded that there might not have been a phone in the bedroom, all possible answers yet not supported by any evidence.

But here's the really damming evidence.

take his scenario. if they were hoods who wanted to do him and his daughter harm, the 911 call could weigh in that he defended himself. because it turned out to be cops, the 911 call would show that he didn't know who they were and reacted out of self defense, supporting his version of what happened.

You suggest an innocent man should create a trail to prove he's innocent.
I said what would happen when one calls 911. if you READ their replies they focused on when the police will get there, not remembering/realizing that the 911 call would be recorded and could possibly be used as EVIDENCE as to his chain of events.

Remember, at this time untill he fired his gun, he had no clue who was out there nor their intent. it was proven by Corey's statement, hence the start of that quoted section "take his scenario. if they were hoods who wanted to do him and his daughter harm, the 911 call could weigh in that he defended himself."

Calling 911 will bring the cops but it will, as a byproduct, produce more EVIDENCE to support what he said happened until the cops arrived.

Shall I show the number of times you make similar suggestions? please do, it will only highlight how YOU are misinterpreting what I posted.

Including things about the lights, hollering out, etc. you mean when I actually backed up the things about the lights by actual articles by security consultants?
Did you provide evidence that turning on the lights was 'silly'? or is that just your opinion.

And, I know your reply is going to be that they are just questions, but the fact is that you're denying that he gets the benefit of the doubt. show me Evidence where I am denying he gets the benefit of the Doubt. I've shown you where I said I wasn't saying Cory was wrong, nor that the actions he took were wrong. all you have is your misinterpretation of what you read including what you think is baised on an incorrect (in your mind) use of the word "if".

Want me to show you? If you're really not a child molester, why don't you provide me with your DNA evidence?sure, I will personally give you DNA evidence. so when and where do we meet?
What? I just asked a question. yes you did and I answered you while keeping to the question's subject matter.
I didn't say you ARE a child molestor.and I never accused you of saying I am. Unlike how you are accusing my question to be presuming Corey to be anything but innocent.
I just asked why IF you're not, you didn't offer your DNA. no you didn't, you asked me if I was a child molester and asked for DNA evidence. See, you can't even keep the questions YOU ask in order in the same post you're examinging your OWN questions.

FOR EVERYONE TO SEE...
Now in your mind, you are saying because I didn't provide DNA evidence I must be guilty of child molestation. You provided the sample question and YOU provided the anlysis of that sample question.

Just like if I asked or gave suggestions of other courses of action I MUST be presuming corey to be anything but innocent even when I said I am not accusing Cory of any wrongdoing. you are only providing examples of your illogical leaps to the conclusions you made that fit your assumptions when you read my posts.

It certainly doesn't presume innocence. It suggests you should evidence your innocence, not that it's presumed.It doesn't deny innocence either.
It does, however, prove how YOU think and the logical steps YOU take to fit evidence and actions to your assumptions.

meaning, YOU read the question and YOU Thought it meant I didn't presume Corey innocent. So far you are only proving that YOU misinterpreted my posts and YOU used that misinterpretation to baise your entire attack on me.

I asked why corey didn't call 911. people gave logical answers as to why. I only persued the ones that didn't make sense to me (the "why bother since it would take the police time to get there" type of answers.) yet you just admitted that such questioning means I don't presume Cory to be innocent. a Leap of logic that would take SUPERMAN's ability to fly to make.

There's even a better one -
I agree this is better. :cool:
We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.
I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home.
and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.
See, this response says that because he didn't do those things it wasn't self-defense. See, that's what "thus" means.
for someone who is supposidly basing his arguments on FACTS.
you sure miss alot of FACTS.

here, answer these questions.
1) Is the trial OVER?

2) Was there a JURY in that trial?

3) Was Corey's defense SELF DEFENSE?

4) WHAT was the Verdict?

to help you out, I will answer it.
1) Yes.
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) GUILTY and he was sentenced to Death. it was later commuted to Life

So the EVIDENCE supprts the statement that "his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury" is true

and please notice, WITH THE JURY. now show where it said "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with me."

so no evidence to show that I am presuming Corey to be anything else but innocent and more proof that you are NOT reading my posts.

yes, I again agree, it is a better example. :cool:

sure, I will personally give you DNA evidence. so when and where do we meet?

Still don't get it, do you? You aren't required to provide evidence. You aren't required to do anything. Why? Because you're presumed innocent and thus have rights. Again, I'm well aware that this isn't compelling to you, but I can't help that you don't understand the presumption of innocence.

The fact that I ask them is suggestive that you're under some sort of obligation to provide evidence. Again, I know you don't realize this, but that you wouldn't provide DNA isn't relevant to whether or not you're a child molestor. On top of that, he can't answer the question, nor can go back and call 911. So your questions that does NOT presume innocence just sits there. It implies that his lack of calling is relevant. And below you more than imply that his lack of turning on the lights, shouting something or making them aware of him was relevant. You straight out said it was why he was found guilty. That's not the presumption of innocence.

We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.
I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home.
and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.

Lalala.

*snip*

Let me help you out. You said "and thus". Thus means "because of this or that". You blatantly said that because he didn't do those things he was found guilty. You justified their verdict on your assumptions.

Again, I can't convince you. Unfortunately, you've adequately demonstrated you aren't family with the presumption of innocence. But, you're not the only one reading my posts.

Still don't get it, do you? You aren't required to provide evidence. and note, I never said I had to. you asked me for DNA evidence, I said Sure provided you personally recieve it.
You aren't required to do anything. Why? well, apparently according to you, I cannot offer DNA evidence. nor can I ask questions concerning the actions or lack of actions for anyone.
Because you're presumed innocent and thus have rights. Again, I'm well aware that this isn't compelling to you, but I can't help that you don't understand the presumption of innocence. Did I say you were compelling me? no.
again you make fantastic leaps of logic no man can decipher.

The fact that I ask them is suggestive that you're under some sort of obligation to provide evidence. No, you asked. you did not suggest anything of the sort. remember this line? What? I just asked a question.
Again, I know you don't realize this, but that you wouldn't provide DNA isn't relevant to whether or not you're a child molestor. Yet YOU asked and I replied. you set the example, and now you're pulling up all these hidden rules and meanings that is not in your example.

Again, do I wanna show where you didn't presume innocence? Easy enough.

Lalala. oh, that 'better example'... read the post above this one.

and note, I never said I had to. you asked me for DNA evidence, I said Sure provided you personally recieve it.
well, apparently according to you, I cannot offer DNA evidence. nor can I ask questions concerning the actions or lack of actions for anyone.
Did I say you were compelling me? no.

Here is the problem. This is about what you said. This is about the presumption of innocence. It's about what's IMPLIED by my questioned. A point you're absolutely avoiding. And, I know you don't understand, but that's not something to keep proving.

again you make fantastic leaps of logic no man can decipher.
Hmmm... anyone looking on want to weigh in on what "no man can decipher"? I do accept the only actual evidence you've collected for this claim. I do accept that you cannot decipher my posts. I've been saying this all along. I'm glad you agree.

No, you asked. you did not suggest anything of the sort. remember this line?

Heh. The line you're quoting was sarcasm. Way to demonstrate just how far point went over your head. I was intentionally implying something. I know I suggested it, because I did it on purpose.


Yet YOU asked and I replied. you set the example, and now you're pulling up all these hidden rules and meanings that is not in your example.

Hidden rules? You don't know what implied means? I asked the question. I know what I implied. I know you missed the implication, but that's not really my problem. By the way, implications are often somewhat hidden. If they weren't a little hidden, they would be explicit rather than implied.

oh, that 'better example'... read the post above this one. I suggest reading it slowing and out loud since you can't seem to even remember what and how you asked questions.

Amusing and ironic from a man who admits he cannot decipher my logic.

Let me help you out. You said "and thus". Thus means "because of this or that". You blatantly said that because he didn't do those things he was found guilty. You justified their verdict on your assumptions. in other words YOU focused ONLY on the first two words of that line and ignored everything else.

Riight glad you admitted to that.

Again, I can't convince you. Unfortunately, you've adequately demonstrated you aren't family with the presumption of innocence. But, you're not the only one reading my posts. again another assumption by you that you have so far failed to support with EVIDENCE.

Here is the problem. This is about what you said. This is about the presumption of innocence. It's about what's IMPLIED by my questioned. A point you're absolutely avoiding. And, I know you don't understand, but that's not something to keep proving. no it's not. so far it's about YOU assuming that I don't believe in Cory's innocence (or guilt). It's about YOU assuming and basing your entire argument on a misinterpretation of my posts. Posts you just admitted you only read a part of.

Hmmm... anyone looking on want to weigh in on what "no man can decipher"? I do accept the only actual evidence you've collected for this claim. I do accept that you cannot decipher my posts. I've been saying this all along. I'm glad you agree.yes, let's hear it from everyone. WHAT DO I MEAN BY 'NO MAN CAN DECIPHER?"
How many think the deciphering comment is about the Logic Jocabia's using or about the deciperhing the post itself as Jocabia just said it was?
here's the quote
again you make fantastic leaps of logic no man can decipher.

Heh. The line you're quoting was sarcasm. Way to demonstrate just how far point went over your head. I was intentionally implying something. I know I suggested it, because I did it on purpose. here we go again folks. He asks, says it a question in the same post he asks that quesiont, then in the next post says I cannot be compelled to obey (yet I never said I was) and his only response "I was being sarcastic."

Hidden rules? You don't know what implied means? I asked the question. I know what I implied. I know you missed the implication, but that's not really my problem. By the way, implications are often somewhat hidden. If they weren't a little hidden, they would be explicit rather than implied. yet my sudden 'sure' mean I am being compelled? normally I'm not required to volunteer evidence yet nothing is stopping me from doing so. The concept of someone volunteering evidence is SO outlandish to you that you can only fluster and say "well I was being sarcastic'.

Amusing and ironic from a man who admits he cannot decipher my logic.. I'm glad you found it amusing. After thinking about it, I was going to remove it since I did think it stepped over the line. I apologize for that and will remove the paragraph.

and now it deciphering your "logic" when earlier you said deciphering your "posts".

in other words YOU focused ONLY on the first two words of that line and ignored everything else.

Not "focused on", just "didn't ignore". Your post meant "because of that he was found guilty". In your reply to my point about you not presuming innocence, you left out the "because of". You just point out that they found him guilty.

Again, I don't need you to agree. I've more than adequately demonstrated the problem here.

Again, I can't convince you. Unfortunately, you've adequately demonstrated you aren't familiar with the presumption of innocence. But, you're not the only one reading my posts.
again another assumption by you that you have so far failed to support with EVIDENCE.

Have you seen my signature? You think it applies to civil trials.

Not "focused on", just "didn't ignore". Your post meant "because of that he was found guilty". In your reply to my point about you not presuming innocence, you left out the "because of". You just point out that they found him guilty. and again you focus on part of the post. WHERE IS "BY THE JURY"? you are so focused on "and thus" that you forgot the rest which doesn't indicate my beliefs in the case.

the line is "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury." No where did I indicate MY belief but stating a conclusion drawn by the fact that the JURY did find him guilty.

Again, I don't need you to agree. I've more than adequately demonstrated the problem here. yep, so please try to read the full post and try not to draw any implications from bits and pieces of any posts from now on. it does tend to detract from the topic.

Have you seen my signature? You think it applies to civil trials.

yes, and the reason why I didn't comment on it is because it shows how you mis interpret everything.


glad you solidified your point. ACCORDING TO JOCABIA, NO ONE BUT THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT IN ANY TRIAL GUYS!!!
so don't sue anyone. they'll be considered innocent while you will be considered guilty.
Glad our system doesn't work that way
bolded and underline to show what you didn't read.

oh and note I am not ASSUMING you made that your sig to get a response from me. that would be against the OSRS.

yes, and the reason why I didn't comment on it is because it shows how you mis interpret everything.


bolded and underline to show what you didn't read.

You don't realize what's wrong with it.

See, presumption of innocence doesn't apply to a civil trials.

The part you underlined IS how a criminal trial works. You just underlined exactly what you don't understand. I assure you, there isn't a lawyer who would read that and not laugh.

Let's say Jane is on trial. Her lawyer presents a story where Joe does it. She doesn't prove it, but she does show evidence for it. The prosecutor shows an equal amount of evidence that Jane did it. For reasonable doubt, I can, as a jurer, just have a reasonable belief Joe did it or even that Joe might have done it. He doesn't get the presumption of innocence because presuming him innocent conflicts with presuming the person on trial innocent. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. Joe doesn't have to be proven guilty in order for his potential guilt to get Jane off. However, Jane DOES have to be proven guilty. And, when Joe is on trial, if he is ever on trial, he'll get the same presumption.

and again you focus on part of the post. WHERE IS "BY THE JURY"? you are so focused on "and thus" that you forgot the rest which doesn't indicate my beliefs in the case.

the line is "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury." No where did I indicate MY belief but stating a conclusion drawn by the fact that the JURY did find him guilty.

yep, so please try to read the full post and try not to draw any implications from bits and pieces of any posts from now on. it does tend to detract from the topic.

You indicate your belief that the Jury found him guilty because of him not doing the things you claimed. Yes, I am addressing that you are talking about what the jury did. However, you offer up WHY they found him guilty when you use a word that means "because of this". Your reasoning for why they found him guilty was based on him not doing what you think he should have done. It presents an obligation. And, yes, I don't expect you'll find this compelling. I'm aware you don't actually realize why the "and thus" matters.

If I made a statement that ends with ".... because of this, the jury found him guilty", is it rational to assume the earlier part is what I believe to be the reason the jury found him guilty or do you not know what because means?

[snipped]:rolleyes:
and this has what to do about my belief in corey mayes how exactly?

another attempt to redirect and... what was it you accused me earlier of doing?

oh yeah. Dodging.

you still cannot show where my statements are evidence that show what my beliefs of Coreys status is.
you cannot back up any of your assumptions of me.

and now you try a classic redirection. :p

:rolleyes:
and this has what to do about my belief in corey mayes how exactly?

another attempt to redirect and... what was it you accused me earlier of doing?

oh yeah. Dodging.

you still cannot show where my statements are evidence that show what my beliefs of Coreys status is.
you cannot back up any of your assumptions of me.

and now you try a classic redirection. :p

I laughed at this. Did you finally realize what was wrong with what you said? The problem is that your understanding is relevant, because we are TALKING about the presumption of innocence. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that you have some idea what it is. Everything about your posts suggests the opposite.

You asked for evidence for that claim. I gave it. Your reply thus far has been to further demonstrate you don't understand and then, when I explained, to call it a misdirection

Tell me you understand what is wrong with your claims about presumption of innocence and I'll be happy to continue, but we can't talk about how your claims don't presume innocence if you don't know what it is.

You indicate your belief that the Jury found him guilty because of him not doing the things you claimed. Yes, I am addressing that you are talking about what the jury did. However, you offer up WHY they found him guilty when you use a word that means "because of this". Your reasoning for why they found him guilty was based on him not doing what you think he should have done. It presents an obligation. And, yes, I don't expect you'll find this compelling. I'm aware you don't actually realize why the "and thus" matters.

If I made a statement that ends with ".... because of this, the jury found him guilty", is it rational to assume the earlier part is what I believe to be the reason the jury found him guilty or do you not know what because means?

Oh man...

You really have a selective reading problem don't you...
We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.
I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home. and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.
let's look at the post I will be focusing on.

I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home.
you gave several thought out reasons why he didn't do what I suggested (for those following along, it was to turn on the lights [both outside and inside] and possibly even shouting out to indicate someone inside is awake.)

Reason 1: "I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake."
Reason 2: "make it easier for them to see me."
Reason 3: "he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home."

and my reply? "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury."

you made it sound like HE WANTED to ambush the person coming in. even IF it was a police officer executing a warrant.

if those reasonings were given as to why he didn't turn on the lights and shout out and do other things that could POSSIBLY avoid conflict, then what would the jury think?

my reasoning. "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury."

If he feared for the safety of his daughter why assume the stance of defending the home with a lethal weapon? why place his daughter in the room where a possible gunfight will take place? why not try non-confrontational methods before firing his gun?

Oh wait. I forgot, by questioning his testimony and his account of what happened, I MUST NOT be presuming him innocent by your standards. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

We can presume the defendant innocent but that doesn't mean we cannot examine nor question his testimony nor his actions. YOU DO KNOW THAT right?

I laughed at this. Did you finally realize what was wrong with what you said? The problem is that your understanding is relevant, because we are TALKING about the presumption of innocence. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that you have some idea what it is. Everything about your posts suggests the opposite.

You asked for evidence for that claim. I gave it. Your reply thus far has been to further demonstrate you don't understand and then, when I explained, to call it a misdirection

Tell me you understand what is wrong with your claims about presumption of innocence and I'll be happy to continue, but we can't talk about how your claims don't presume innocence if you don't know what it is.

WOW laugh again dude. The problem is that YOU THOUGHT I DIDN'T PRESUME MAYES INNOCENT!

that is what you said
that is what we're arguing
YOU are arguing that I am presuming Mayes guilty YOU even said it yourself.

When given alternatives, you just made up how he COULD have called, whether you knew it or not. That's not based on evidence. It's assumption that is unsupported altogether, and thus doesn't give the presumption of innocent.

This once again intentionally calls into question his version of the events, suggesting that his not calling 911 questions his innocence. Wild speculation doesn't isn't the presumption of innocence. Yes, I know you don't understand, but, honestly, you're assuming things and pretending they hold.


you assume that my questioning his actions and motive are evidence that show I do not consider Mayes INNOCENT.

again because you cannot support your claims you again try a redirect.

you believe, and this is drawn by your posts, that any questioning of May's account, any deviation from the "Mays is telling the truth that is straight from God" in your mind is the questioner NOT giving Mayes the Presumption of Innocence.

You are soo far off the mark, I don't think you're even reading YOUR posts.

and remember,
1) the trial is OVER
2) the VERDICT is in.
3) The appeals are in process (from last I read and I wish him luck)
4) The Jury, not me, not you, the JURY rendered their verdict.

and your explination for Presumption of Innocence applies to the TRIAL and the period BEFORE THE TRIAL. the TRIAL IS OVER!

Oh man...

You really have a selective reading problem don't you...

let's look at the post I will be focusing on.


you gave several thought out reasons why he didn't do what I suggested (for those following along, it was to turn on the lights [both outside and inside] and possibly even shouting out to indicate someone inside is awake.)

Reason 1: "I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake."
Reason 2: "make it easier for them to see me."
Reason 3: "he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home."

and my reply? "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury."

you made it sound like HE WANTED to ambush the person coming in. even IF it was a police officer executing a warrant.

if those reasonings were given as to why he didn't turn on the lights and shout out and do other things that could POSSIBLY avoid conflict, then what would the jury think?

my reasoning. "and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury."

If he feared for the safety of his daughter why assume the stance of defending the home with a lethal weapon? why place his daughter in the room where a possible gunfight will take place? why not try non-confrontational methods before firing his gun?

Oh wait. I forgot, by questioning his testimony and his account of what happened, I MUST NOT be presuming him innocent by your standards. [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

We can presume the defendant innocent but that doesn't mean we cannot examine nor question his testimony nor his actions. YOU DO KNOW THAT right?

I'm starting a thread on the presumption of innocence. NA was right about what it would take to actually correct your understanding of it, but perhaps I can get you to understand how distant what you're saying is from it.

You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that". See, he did what he did. And you claimed that because he didn't do what you said he would do and instead bunkered down very effectively (which is what my post said) he was found guilty by the jury. Bunkering down effectively isn't a crime. He was in his home. He was protecting his daughter. That Jones was in his home when he shot Jones is a FACT. In order to be found guilty, you can't just say "well he was bunkered down" or "he didn't do this". But you said that was WHY he was found guilty. And it's not the presumption of innocence. You're saying he didn't position himself to be proven innocent. Which is consistent with your remarks about not recording the event with 911, with not turning on the lights, with not announcing himself to intruders. You implicitly blame him for the misunderstanding when you ask why he didn't do those things. He's not at all obligated to check if an intruder is a cop.

You didn't just question his account. You said he was found guilty because he didn't behave right. And you gave examples of how he didn't behave right.

I'll ask clearly. You said "that's why he was found guilty by the jury". What was the specific reason found in those posts for why he was found guilty by the Jury?

WOW laugh again dude. The problem is that YOU THOUGHT I DIDN'T PRESUME MAYES INNOCENT!

that is what you said
that is what we're arguing
YOU are arguing that I am presuming Mayes guilty YOU even said it yourself.

Dude, you claimed that Presumption of Innocence applies to lawsuits and to other people than the accused
. It doesn't.

you assume that my questioning his actions and motive are evidence that show I do not consider Mayes INNOCENT.

again because you cannot support your claims you again try a redirect.

you believe, and this is drawn by your posts, that any questioning of May's account, any deviation from the "Mays is telling the truth that is straight from God" in your mind is the questioner NOT giving Mayes the Presumption of Innocence.

You are soo far off the mark, I don't think you're even reading YOUR posts.

and remember,
1) the trial is OVER
2) the VERDICT is in.
3) The appeals are in process (from last I read and I wish him luck)
4) The Jury, not me, not you, the JURY rendered their verdict.

and your explination for Presumption of Innocence applies to the TRIAL and the period BEFORE THE TRIAL. the TRIAL IS OVER!

The presumption of innocence is what we are discussing because we are debating with the trial was fair. Since you like caps. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE TRIAL. We cannot do that unless we give him the same benefit of the doubt that he deserves at trial. Is that your usual level of debate?

OP:"Hey, guys, I don't agree with the outcome of this trial. Let's discuss."
JuNii: Well, the outcome of the trial was X so it must be right.

We are debating the case. I've already explained this. Other people have explained this. We don't agree with the jury. We're pointing out why. That the trial is over is not relevant to our disagreement. He still deserves the presumption of innocence. And there will be judges who will analyze whether or not he was properly represented, whether the instructions to the jury were adequate, whether he got the presumption of innocence. Thus over her not, whether or not he was presumed innocent is relevant. The verdict can overturned if there is enough reason to question the verdict. There is not suddenly a presumption of guilt.

And what's the moral of this story?

If you shoot and kill a burglar running from your neighbor's house it's perfectly acceptable self-defense, but accidentally kill a police officer even though you truly felt threatened and was served no warning you're a dirty soulless cop killer who deserves to rot or fry.

I'm starting a thread on the presumption of innocence. NA was right about what it would take to actually correct your understanding of it, but perhaps I can get you to understand how distant what you're saying is from it. fine indulge in your flight of fancy on what we are truly arguing about.

You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". I didn't YOU said it.
You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that". See, he did what he did. And you claimed that because he didn't do what you said he would do and instead bunkered down very effectively (which is what my post said) he was found guilty by the jury. Bunkering down effectively isn't a crime. He was in his home. He was protecting his daughter. That Jones was in his home when he shot Jones is a FACT. In order to be found guilty, you can't just say "well he was bunkered down" or "he didn't do this". But you said that was WHY he was found guilty. And it's not the presumption of innocence. You're saying he didn't position himself to be proven innocent. Which is consistent with your remarks about not recording the event with 911, with not turning on the lights, with not announcing himself to intruders. You implicitly blame him for the misunderstanding when you ask why he didn't do those things. He's not at all obligated to check if an intruder is a cop. and there is ONE fact that is escaping you.

INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty. we, here at nationstates are not representatives of the law. I am not a Lawyer and thus can hold my own opinions.

now not the part in red.

Do you know what that IMPLIES? it implies that this is BEFORE and DURING the trial. The TRIAL is OVER. no where does it state that the Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial.

also, nowhere does it state that questioning the person's account is forbidden for Presumption of Innocence. you added that.

You didn't just question his account. You said he was found guilty because he didn't behave right. And you gave examples of how he didn't behave right. nope, I said he was found guilty after YOU suggested that one reason was that he hid to ambush the person coming in... EVEN IF IT WAS A POLICE OFFICER. YOUR WORDS. not mine. so you just proved that it was YOU who denied Mayes his Presumption of Innocence, not me.

I'll ask clearly. You said "that's why he was found guilty by the jury". What was the specific reason found in those posts for why he was found guilty by the Jury?NO. that was a response to the reasons YOU gave as to why he chose not to turn on the lights or make his presence known.

nowhere, and you have yet to back it up with evidence, did I say his actions were wrong. I said there were many things he could've done and all would be 'right'.

*snip*

Okay, I really would like to explain my point, but I do need you to understand the presumption of innocence.

Does presumption of innocence have anything to do with a lawsuit?

Does presumption of innocence apply to someone else who might have committed a crime for which you are being tried (during your trial)?

Why am I asking? Because it demonstrates why your statements about 911 and him not turning on the lights, not announcing himself, not making sure the cops were aware he was there, etc, aren't relevant.

I'll be happy to address your other arguments, but first, correct yourself. Show me that you realize that you were wrong about the presumption of innocence. And, in a debate about whether or not this man received justice, it's absolutely relevant.

NO. that was a response to the reasons YOU gave as to why he chose not to turn on the lights or make his presence known.

nowhere, and you have yet to back it up with evidence, did I say his actions were wrong. I said there were many things he could've done and all would be 'right'.

This doesn't answer my question. Seriously, slow down and take a breath. I'm not making fun of you or trying to agitate you.

Ignore whether you or I think he was wrong or anything else we've said.

You said, "Because of this he was found guilt by the jury". Because of WHAT? Just answer that question. Forget right, wrong or other arguments. Because of WHAT was he found guilty by the jury? You say it was talking about reasons I gave. What reason that I gave specifically caused him to be found guilty by the jury?

The presumption of innocence is what we are discussing because we are debating with the trial was fair. Since you like caps. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE TRIAL. We cannot do that unless we give him the same benefit of the doubt that he deserves at trial. Is that your usual level of debate? WRONG! YOU were discussing the trial before you pulled me in.
I was discussing the actions taken and not taken.

THEN YOU PULLED ME IN saying I wasn't presuming Mays Innocence. YOU Misinterpreted my posts and now YOU are trying to say that I am the one doing the misinterpreting!

OP:"Hey, guys, I don't agree with the outcome of this trial. Let's discuss."read the OP again dude.

At 11p.m on December 26, 2001 police in Prentiss, Mississippi raided the residence of Cory Maye, a 21-year-old father who was at home with his 18-month-old daughter Ta'Corriana.

The cops were looking for drugs and smashed through the back door. In the ensuing chaos, Maye hunkered down with his daughter in a bedroom and when the police broke down that door, he fired three bullets, one of which killed Officer Ron Jones. Maye testified in court that the police did not identify themselves until after they had entered his residence; indeed, he testified that they did not identify themselves until after he had fired his shots. Once they did, he said he put his weapon on the floor, slid it toward police, and surrendered.

LINK

I felt like this was a really interesting video/article and I wanted to share it.where does it say "Hey, guys, I don't agree with the outcome of this trial. Let's discuss."

I dont see him saying he disagreed with the verdict in the OP.

I don't see him saying "Lets discuss the trial and verdictc"

please highlight in the OP where he said it.

or are you pointing to a post where his is in discussion with OTHER PEOPLE?

JuNii: Well, the outcome of the trial was X so it must be right. more assumptions. where did I say the verdict was right?
see, this is you misinterpreting what I said and the context of which it was said. YOU gave the suggestion that Mays wanted to ambush the person coming in EVEN IF THAT PERSON WAS A POLICE OFFICER. YOU said that not me.

look at post 141 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13697096&postcount=141)
I'm starting a thread on the presumption of innocence. NA was right about what it would take to actually correct your understanding of it, but perhaps I can get you to understand how distant what you're saying is from it.

You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that". See, he did what he did. And you claimed that because he didn't do what you said he would do and instead bunkered down very effectively (which is what my post said) he was found guilty by the jury. Bunkering down effectively isn't a crime. He was in his home. He was protecting his daughter. That Jones was in his home when he shot Jones is a FACT. In order to be found guilty, you can't just say "well he was bunkered down" or "he didn't do this". But you said that was WHY he was found guilty. And it's not the presumption of innocence. You're saying he didn't position himself to be proven innocent. Which is consistent with your remarks about not recording the event with 911, with not turning on the lights, with not announcing himself to intruders. You implicitly blame him for the misunderstanding when you ask why he didn't do those things. He's not at all obligated to check if an intruder is a cop.

You didn't just question his account. You said he was found guilty because he didn't behave right. And you gave examples of how he didn't behave right.

I'll ask clearly. You said "that's why he was found guilty by the jury". What was the specific reason found in those posts for why he was found guilty by the Jury?

Only an idiot would do any of those things. He has an advantage of being awake and alert when intruders are breaking in. He doesn't know how many there are or if they are armed. I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home. This man did an excellent job of protecting his home and positioning himself and his daughter in a way that would keep them unharmed. The only mistake he made was not realizing that even though he was an innocent man, the intruders might be unidentified police officers.

Which demonstrates the man inside the house was intelligent. And the cops weren't. The big "POLICE" notices on their vests are for their safety and to identify them. They went into a dark establishment and didn't make it easy for someone to identify them, which is the purpose. Police procedures are designed to protect everyone involved. Protecting themselves and the people they arrest is their burden. It sucks. It's unfair. But it's their job. They are required to try and prevent bloodshed. These police made some rather glaring mistakes even if we believe their version of the story, which, frankly, is utterly unbelievable the way it's told in any of the articles.

Which means the officer's made a mistake. A - they should never assume the house in empty. B - if they were silly enough to assume the house WAS empty, then there would be reason to rush the situation. No one to get away or destroy evidence, so they'd have had plenty of time to secure the premises while continuing to regularly announce themselves.

As is their duty.

But it doesn't make any sense. Why was an innocent man, and we now know he was innocent at the time, being laying in wait to kill a police officer with a baby in his arms? Why? No one has explained any reasonable reason why he would fire if he knew they were police. The cops aren't telling a story that makes any sense. As soon as the door was open they should have been shouting that they were the police. Clearly when they DID shout they were the police, the man inside laid down his weapon.

The last part doesn't offer anything relevant? What does the first arrest have to do with anything? We're not talking about what the officers thought at the time. The assumption of innocence goes to the man on trial. What reason would he have to believe they were officers?

He didn't get life in prison, and originally death row, for mishandling a weapon or accidentally killing someone. This man was charged and convicted for intentionally killing a police officer. Nothing you've offered speaks to any mistake the man made, other than those built on the ridiculous assumption that in such a situation the guy would get up and turn on the lights and search for a phone, rather than his daughter and his gun.
so WHO suggested that "he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home."

not me. YOU did.

and you tried to say I suggested that? it's all here in the posts slick. nice, stopped with the deflections and now going with the LIES.

We are debating the case.we as in WHO, you and others? yes. Me: no.
I've already explained this. Other people have explained this. We don't agree with the jury. We're pointing out why. That the trial is over is not relevant to our disagreement. He still deserves the presumption of innocence. except the trial is over. thus it goes to the Appeal process where does it state that Presumption of Innocence has to carry on past the trial by citizens NOT PART OF THE TRIAL?

And there will be judges who will analyze whether or not he was properly represented, whether the instructions to the jury were adequate, whether he got the presumption of innocence.and who does that? people on the internet? or the JUDGES... oh there, you said it.
Thus over her not, whether or not he was presumed innocent is relevant. show me where that is a requirement of all citizens after the trial.
The verdict can overturned if there is enough reason to question the verdict. There is not suddenly a presumption of guilt.and YOU YET have to show beyond YOUR interpretation (Which I've shown as being false) That I presumed Mayes to be anything BUT innocent?

YOU said we cannot question maye's account, that is not stated in the definition of Presumption of innocence.

YOU said we cannot question Maye's account, show me where average citizens NOT connected with the case are held to this.

YOU drew me into YOUR argument with someone else because YOU misinterpreted what I posted.

and YOU have not proven otherwise.

*snip*

Do you notice I keep snipping your posts? Think there might be a reason for it? You're all over the map. Focus. Or don't. However if you do the first one, you'll actually learn what the presumption of innocence is and why it matters. I'm currently talking to half a dozen people who have no idea what you're talking about. Please, just focus. Stop complicating everything. Simplify.

I ask you a simple question and you avoid it.

Does the presumption of innocence apply to a civil trial? You explicitly said it did.

Does the presumption of innocence apply to the accused of a crime?

Does it have anything to do with whether or not we can consider someone incompetent?

Okay, I really would like to explain my point, but I do need you to understand the presumption of innocence.

Does presumption of innocence have anything to do with a lawsuit? nope

Does presumption of innocence apply to someone else who might have committed a crime for which you are being tried (during your trial)?nope

Why am I asking? Because it demonstrates why your statements about 911 and him not turning on the lights, not announcing himself, not making sure the cops were aware he was there, etc, aren't relevant. No it doesn't. why? and listen.
BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the trial nor the verdict. I was examining his actions. ok? repeat after me, BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the Trial or the Verdict. I was examinging HIS ACTIONS.

repeat after me, BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the Trial or the Verdict. I was examinging HIS ACTIONS.

do you understand? I was not discussing the trial, I was not discussing the verdict. I was examining his actions.

as a private citizen not tied to any law agency, I can do that because MY findings won't make a difference either way.

now YOU speculated those reasons. so therefore can I not speculate that could be why he was found guilty by the jury?

I'll be happy to address your other arguments, but first, correct yourself. Show me that you realize that you were wrong about the presumption of innocence. And, in a debate about whether or not this man received justice, it's absolutely relevant.
I'll admit I did make a mistake when I tied Presumption of Innocence to civil cases.
NOW YOU answer me these questions.

As a private citizen that is not connected with the case in any form, not on any jury, not a judge nor a lawyer. AM I REQUIRED to presume him innocent?

PLEASE SHOW ME Where I CANNOT Question is actions under the presumption of innocence and your post 271?
You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that". See, he did what he did.

Please show me where I DIDN'T presume him innocence OUTSIDE of your speculation.

This doesn't answer my question. Seriously, slow down and take a breath. I'm not making fun of you or trying to agitate you. yes it does Jocabia, it answers the question of WHO SAID WHAT here on this forum, something YOU brought up. all these points are ones YOU introduced. your blatant lie about me saying he wanted to ambush police is WRONG. you mentioned the ambush.

and yes, I am calm.

Ignore whether you or I think he was wrong or anything else we've said. Sure, but only if you do the same since YOU started it.

You said, "Because of this he was found guilt by the jury". Because of WHAT? explained in post 269 Just answer that question. Forget right, wrong or other arguments. Because of WHAT was he found guilty by the jury? You say it was talking about reasons I gave. What reason that I gave specifically caused him to be found guilty by the jury?explained in post 269

nope

Good. You're learning. In my quote you said it did.


nope

Good. You're learning. In my quote you claimed it did.


No it doesn't. why? and listen.
BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the trial nor the verdict. I was examining his actions. ok? repeat after me, BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the Trial or the Verdict. I was examinging HIS ACTIONS.

Then why do you keep mentioning the trial. You're keep flipping this little claim. Whenever I corner you, you reference the verdict. Here's a tip: you're the only one you're fooling. Everyone reading is seeing how ridiculously your arguments are.


repeat after me, BEFORE YOU POSTED TO ME, I was not arguing the Trial or the Verdict. I was examinging HIS ACTIONS.

However, not all your replies have been before I posted to you, have they? Initially, I only made fun of your silly assumptions, like that his 18-month-old daughter had a cell phone. Then after you were embarrassed on that assumption, you twisted and turned in the wind while we laughed.


do you understand? I was not discussing the trial, I was not discussing the verdict. I was examining his actions.

But we are. And you have since. A lot. Do I need to point out how many times you brought up the verdict?

as a private citizen not tied to any law agency, I can do that because MY findings won't make a difference either way.

Surely. But we're talking about whether or not he committed a crime. And, lie all you like, you several times claimed that it was his fault he got convicted.


I'll admit I did make a mistake when I tied Presumption of Innocence to civil cases.

Thank you. Why is that so difficult to just admit. It didn't just make you seem silly. It demonstrated a frustrating level of ignorance about anything having to do with a criminal event.


NOW YOU answer me these questions.

As a private citizen that is not connected with the case in any form, not on any jury, not a judge nor a lawyer. AM I REQUIRED to presume him innocent?

The point is that your speculation is not relevant to the trial. You specifically applied your nonsense to the trial and used the verdict to support your claims. I pointed out the presumption of innocence because we're discussing the trial.

You several times supported the verdict, even if you lie and say you haven't. Shall I show you the number of times you quoted it as justification that he did something wrong. You also several times said he should have called 911 so he could demonstrate his innocence. Want a quote?


Please show me where I DIDN'T presume him innocence OUTSIDE of your speculation.

It's not speculation. Sadly you don't seem to understand the word "thus" which means because. You claimed my post contained the reasons he was found guilty. The problem being that he can't be found guilty for those reasons under the presumption of innocence. That's the part you're missing.


yes it does Jocabia, it answers the question of WHO SAID WHAT here on this forum, something YOU brought up. all these points are ones YOU introduced. your blatant lie about me saying he wanted to ambush police is WRONG. you mentioned the ambush.

I certainly did. That's the problem. It's part of what we're laughing at. I'll bring up a problem with this case and you'll claim you didn't bring it up. The problem is, I did, because it's relevant. Seriously, much of what you've said here barely makes any sense. I'm not abusing you, or joking, or making fun of you. I seriously contacted other people around NSG to see if it was just me. It wasn't. In fact, I've yet to find anyone who said that you're following along.

And, it's not an ambush when defend your home. He chose a safe place from which to defend himself. That's not speculation. That's a fact. It worked. An intruder entered the room and he shot them. The fact said intruder was trained didn't change it. The fact that said intruder should have been prepared for a potential attack didn't change it. When I pointed this out, you claimed it was why he was found guilty. He had a right to defend his home and his daughter. They, you, someone has an obligation to show he was trying to kill cops. Otherwise, this guy is just a man who defended his home.


and yes, I am calm.

I don't believe you. You don't actually seem to be thinking things through BEFORE you post. Thus the incredible mistakes in some of your posts. That's what made NA shudder. Seriously, there are so many misunderstandings of the law in one of your posts, that he didn't even bother to try and explain it. Do you know how much NA loves to correct people on the law? You broke him.


Sure, but only if you do the same since YOU started it.

explained in post 269explained in post 269

See, no it isn't.

See, my question is terribly simple. It refers to very short posts. You can't explicitly say what specific part of my post, what EXPLICIT reason you were saying was the reason why they found guilty. You've talked in all kinds of circles.

Quote my post, and bold the specific reason he was found guilty.

Don't hijack the other thread. You wanna discuss this case, discuss it here.

As to whether or not you were discussing the case. Here is a post from BEFORE I replied.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13697056&postcount=137
evidence?

He testified that he waited

Did I say That? please show me where I said he deserved to be on deathrow or even given life.

what did the jury hear during the testimony? What did his attorney present and what did the officers present?


you will have voice evidence

Recorded evidence of what happened.

Here are some bits I edited out. Hmmm... good thing you were discussing the case. How dare I pretend like you were talking about the case and evidence. I clearly made that up.

Mind you, this is before my first post in the thread.

Then why do you keep mentioning the trial. You're keep flipping this little claim. Whenever I corner you, you reference the verdict. Here's a tip: you're the only one you're fooling. Everyone reading is seeing how ridiculously your arguments are. no, YOU mentioned the trials. My only mentions of the trials are
1) the supposition that your reasonings were why the jury didn't believe his self defense story
2) the fact that the trial was over.

YOU kept bringing up trials as you tried to redirect the subject of my not presuming him innocent to the definition of presumption of innocence.

However, not all your replies have been before I posted to you, have they? Initially, I only made fun of your silly assumptions, like that his 18-month-old daughter had a cell phone. Then after you were embarrassed on that assumption, you twisted and turned in the wind while we laughed.er no, I said and if you read. "That is why I said COULD BE to NOBLE HOBOS.

yep, that's me being embarrased by that assumption especially several posts before you popped in I said I misread her age. or it could be me aknowledging the mistake and moving on.

But we are. And you have since. A lot. Do I need to point out how many times you brought up the verdict? Go ahead.

shall I bring up all the times YOU accused me of not presuming May's innocent? I'll bet you it would be more than me referencing the verdict.

Surely. But we're talking about whether or not he committed a crime. And, lie all you like, you several times claimed that it was his fault he got convicted. NO WE WERE NOT discussing whether or not he committed a crime. we [you and me] were discussing about Presumption of Innocence. YOU first Accused me of not presuming him innocent (and you tried to prove that by using smoke and mirrors) and later you tried to turn the argument to the definition of Presumption of Innocence.

Thank you. Why is that so difficult to just admit. It didn't just make you seem silly. It demonstrated a frustrating level of ignorance about anything having to do with a criminal event.
now admit your mistake about any conclusions you thought I made of Cory Mayes.

The point is that your speculation is not relevant to the trial. You specifically applied your nonsense to the trial and used the verdict to support your claims. I pointed out the presumption of innocence because we're discussing the trial. My posts before you popped in was NEVER ABOUT THE TRIAL!

you keep insisting it was yet you cannot prove it other than my reply about the jury.

You several times supported the verdict, even if you lie and say you haven't. Shall I show you the number of times you quoted it as justification that he did something wrong. You also several times said he should have called 911 so he could demonstrate his innocence. Want a quote? go ahead. show everyone other posts you misinterpreted.

well, I'm asking. and please, POST EACH INSTANCE so that eveyone can count. I'll do the same with all of your accusations of me not presuming him innocent.


It's not speculation. Sadly you don't seem to understand the word "thus" which means because. You claimed my post contained the reasons he was found guilty. The problem being that he can't be found guilty for those reasons under the presumption of innocence. That's the part you're missing. and THUS, because you cannot, you resort back to your speculation. fine, since you're so hung up on phrases and wording. PROVE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TRIAL IN THE POSTS BEFORE YOU DRAGGED ME INTO YOUR LITTLE WORLD OF FANCY.

now remember, I have to be talking specifically about the trial and verdict.

I certainly did. That's the problem. It's part of what we're laughing at. I'll bring up a problem with this case and you'll claim you didn't bring it up. The problem is, I did, because it's relevant. Seriously, much of what you've said here barely makes any sense. I'm not abusing you, or joking, or making fun of you. I seriously contacted other people around NSG to see if it was just me. It wasn't. In fact, I've yet to find anyone who said that you're following along. so you admit that you lied about who mentioned the ambush.

you are talking about the CASE, I NEVER WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. that's why it didn't make sense to you. because YOU were focused on one thing I was focusing on another.

And, it's not an ambush when defend your home. He chose a safe place from which to defend himself. That's not speculation. That's a fact. It worked. An intruder entered the room and he shot them. The fact said intruder was trained didn't change it. The fact that said intruder should have been prepared for a potential attack didn't change it. When I pointed this out, you claimed it was why he was found guilty. He had a right to defend his home and his daughter. They, you, someone has an obligation to show he was trying to kill cops. Otherwise, this guy is just a man who defended his home.
not an ambush?
Ambush (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambush)
–noun Also, am·bush·ment.
1. an act or instance of lying concealed so as to attack by surprise: The highwaymen waited in ambush near the road.
2. an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position.
3. the concealed position itself: They fired from ambush.
4. those who attack suddenly and unexpectedly from a concealed position.

–verb (used with object)
5. to attack from ambush.

Did I ever say he was wrong to ambush anyone?
or are you just speculating I did.

considering you are such a stickler for definition of words You have to present evidence that I said such.

no more 'well this means'.

just straight talk from here on out jocabia.

now let's look at other facts.
was he found guilty by a jury? (show the evidence)
DID I EVER SAY THAT THE JURY WAS RIGHT? (show the evidence.)
DID I EVER SAY MAYES WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT? (Show the evidence)

remember, straight talk. no more arguing the 'IF's or 'Thus's no more 'Well this means...' Straight posts.

I don't believe you. and you have EVIDENCE of me not being calm? present it

See, no it isn't.

See, my question is terribly simple. It refers to very short posts. You can't explicitly say what specific part of my post, what EXPLICIT reason you were saying was the reason why they found guilty. You've talked in all kinds of circles. I never stated I believed him guilty. you cannot specificaly say I believed him guilty.

nor did I give any actual reason why the jury found him guilty.

INFACT, if going by straight talk, no aruging thus or if's I never said the jury found him guilty (outside of me trying to explain my posts to you.) The words were that is why is defense of self defense didn't fly. nothing about beliefs, nothing about guilt.

I said IF you take my comment about the jury believing him guilty to be my reason, the YOU gave the reasons that backed that up.

I took your reasons why he didn't do anything else except secure his daughter, load his gun and WAIT in a concealed location and in a manner where a police officer could not defend himself as a possible reason why the jury didn't believe his self defense story.


now show me, via posts, where I was discussing the trial and verdictl before you posted to me.

YOU stated I was talking about the trial and verdic before you posted to me. show the evidence where I specifically talked about the trial and not what was in the articles I posted.

Don't hijack the other thread. You wanna discuss this case, discuss it here.

As to whether or not you were discussing the case. Here is a post from BEFORE I replied.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13697056&postcount=137


Here are some bits I edited out. Hmmm... good thing you were discussing the case. How dare I pretend like you were talking about the case and evidence. I clearly made that up.

Mind you, this is before my first post in the thread.
and that was from the trial transcrips or was that from the articles I posted.

I didn't know FOX, WIKI and Reason Magazine tried people?

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you quoted was in reference to the trial itself or the articles published.

remember, straight talk. no redefining 'if' 'thus' and saying 'this means...'

I posted ARTICLES. so wouldn't it make sense that I am referencing and talking about the articles and not the trial and verdict as YOU said.

*snip*

I'm not going to allow you run all over the map like this. Snip. Snip. Snip. So you can give straight answers, or you get just keep getting snip. I care not which. I have not the slightest fear that anyone reading this thinks you have a case.

and that was from the trial transcrips or was that from the articles I posted.

I didn't know FOX, WIKI and Reason Magazine tried people?

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you quoted was in reference to the trial itself or the articles published.

remember, straight talk. no redefining 'if' 'thus' and saying 'this means...'

I posted ARTICLES. so wouldn't it make sense that I am referencing and talking about the articles and not the trial and verdict as YOU said.

Like I said, you're not actually replying. You said you were not discussing the trial nor the verdict. I proved you were. It doesn't matter where you got your information from. You were discussing the trial and the evidence. I simply held you doing it properly.

There is no reasonable doubt that when you talked about the jury and the testimony and the verdict, that you were, in fact, discussing the jury, the testimony and the verdict. But, hey, if at this point you want to lie about it, I won't stop you, but you're going to look silly.

I'm not going to allow you run all over the map like this. Snip. Snip. Snip. So you can give straight answers, or you get just keep getting snip. I care not which. I have not the slightest fear that anyone reading this thinks you have a case.

considering you've never given me a straight answer.

all your evidence against me is your interpretation of posts without taking the entire conversation and putting it in context

you constantly shifted your aruguments when you couldn't provide any evidence to back up your claims.

You even tried to lie as to who said what.

you cannot show I was focused on the trial or the verdic as YOU said I was.

you cannot even admit that this whole thing started with a misunderstanding. no.

you left questions unanswered, you left points unchallanged. and all you could pull up was "this is what I think you meant".

Like I said, you're not actually replying. You said you were not discussing the trial nor the verdict. I proved you were. It doesn't matter where you got your information from. You were discussing the trial and the evidence. I simply held you doing it properly.

no I wasn't I was examining his actions.

again I was not talking about the trial, nor verdict. you cannot prove that I was referencing a magazine article where he gave his account as to what happened.

You introduced the idea of ambush and claimed 'its not ambush if one is defending his home' right. I've shown otherwise. It;s because you think to ambush someone is to be guilty.

now let's look at TESTIFY
since you're soo keen on words being used properly...

tes·ti·fy
–verb (used without object)
1. to bear witness; give or afford evidence.
2. Law. to give testimony under oath or solemn affirmation, usually in court.
3. to make solemn declaration.
–verb (used with object) 4. to bear witness to; affirm as fact or truth; attest.
5. to give or afford evidence of in any manner.
6. Law. to state or declare under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
7. to declare, profess, or acknowledge openly.

Did he or Did he not give an account to the media outlets?

so again, you cannot support that I was talking about the Trial and VERDICT before YOU popped in.

I have not the slightest fear that anyone reading this thinks you have a case.

*snore ... snore ... snore*

Huh? Yes, your honour I'm very sorry your honour it won't happen again. Sorry.

*shuffles out for refreshment break*

no I wasn't I was examining his actions.

again I was not talking about the trial, nor verdict. you cannot prove that I was referencing a magazine article where he gave his account as to what happened.

You introduced the idea of ambush and claimed 'its not ambush if one is defending his home' right. I've shown otherwise. It;s because you think to ambush someone is to be guilty.

now let's look at TESTIFY
since you're soo keen on words being used properly...

tes·ti·fy
–verb (used without object)
1. to bear witness; give or afford evidence.
2. Law. to give testimony under oath or solemn affirmation, usually in court.
3. to make solemn declaration.
–verb (used with object) 4. to bear witness to; affirm as fact or truth; attest.
5. to give or afford evidence of in any manner.
6. Law. to state or declare under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
7. to declare, profess, or acknowledge openly.

Did he or Did he not give an account to the media outlets?

so again, you cannot support that I was talking about the Trial and VERDICT before YOU popped in.

/thread

This is so blatantly dishonest, that I'm just going to smile and back out of the thread. Is there another meaning of the word "jury" you can lie about having used as well?

evidence?

He testified that he waited

Did I say That? please show me where I said he deserved to be on deathrow or even given life.

what did the jury hear during the testimony? What did his attorney present and what did the officers present?


you will have voice evidence

Recorded evidence of what happened.

/thread

This is so blatantly dishonest, that I'm just going to smile and back out of the thread.

Bye! :cool:

Bye! :cool:

evidence?

He testified that he waited

Did I say That? please show me where I said he deserved to be on deathrow or even given life.

what did the jury hear during the testimony? What did his attorney present and what did the officers present?


you will have voice evidence

Recorded evidence of what happened.

Yeah, it's pretty difficult not to laugh at this point.

Dammit, JuNii. Do not hijack my thread. We were talking about a trial, and applied the principle to the defendent and your claims about how he should have collected evidence. Now, if NA would like to get into the specifics, he's welcome to join us in THAT thread.

However, HERE we are talking about criminal trials. Not your rather poor understanding of an argument from another thread.


HOW IS THAT A FUCKING HIJACK. Did you or did you not post in this thread that you were creating another thread about the presumption of Innocence?

for the sole purpose of explaining what Presumption of Innocence is?

Did you not state in your OP that it was a broad topic?

WHERE IN MY POSTS DID I REFENCE THIS CASE?

I aske a Question, NEO stated I knew the answer and he had no time so I posted what I knew and suspected.

how is that a fucking Hijack?

NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I REFERENCING THIS CASE, NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, YOU ARE!!

HOW IS THAT A FUCKING HIJACK. Did you or did you not post in this thread that you were creating another thread about the presumption of Innocence?

for the sole purpose of explaining what Presumption of Innocence is?

Did you not state in your OP that it was a broad topic?

WHERE IN MY POSTS DID I REFENCE THIS CASE?

I aske a Question, NEO stated I knew the answer and he had no time so I posted what I knew and suspected.

how is that a fucking Hijack?

NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I REFERENCING THIS CASE, NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, YOU ARE!!



1. Calm the fuck down.
2. Why in God's name are you bringing this into this thread? It was posted on another thread and has no place here.

1. Calm the fuck down.
2. Why in God's name are you bringing this into this thread? It was posted on another thread and has no place here.

because KoL, Jocaba has accused me of trying to hijack the other thread. yet so far, well, untill Barr posted, Joc is the only one to post off topic. to keep that thread on topic, I had to post the reply somewhere and I definately didn't want to hijack that thread.

and believe it or not, I am calm. ;)

I can rant and rave without getting upset. infact, I'm not even breathing hard.

because KoL, Jocaba has accused me of trying to hijack the other thread. yet so far, well, untill Barr posted, Joc is the only one to post off topic. to keep that thread on topic, I had to post the reply somewhere and I definately didn't want to hijack that thread.

and believe it or not, I am calm. ;)

I can rant and rave without getting upset. infact, I'm not even breathing hard.

Fair enough. And as to you being calm, I apologize. Even I sometimes fall into the trap of NSG where you assume that just because someone uses an exclaimation mark they are foaming at the mouth;)

HOW IS THAT A FUCKING HIJACK. Did you or did you not post in this thread that you were creating another thread about the presumption of Innocence?

for the sole purpose of explaining what Presumption of Innocence is?

Did you not state in your OP that it was a broad topic?

WHERE IN MY POSTS DID I REFENCE THIS CASE?

I aske a Question, NEO stated I knew the answer and he had no time so I posted what I knew and suspected.

how is that a fucking Hijack?

NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I REFERENCING THIS CASE, NO WHERE IN THAT THREAD AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, YOU ARE!!

Angry or not, your questions are a misunderstanding. I was applying the presumption of innocence to a discussion of a trial. I know I know, you weren't discussing a trial when you mentioned the jury, testimony and evidence. Frankly, at this point, I don't care. But you're not going to get your misunderstanding of MY points corrected by someone else and I'm not willing to delve into it anymore.

The thread I started is about trial law. You know the answer to most of your questions. There isn't a law. I was talking about the burden of proof for a discussion of a trial. They're rules of debate not law.

You've dragged it into three seperate threads and now required the mods to deal with it. They'll likely have to read pages because you couldn't just drop it. You can't honestly claim you thought I was saying there is a law that requires people on the internet to offer the presumption of innocence. You're welcome to keep posting on this subject. I can't stop you. I just asked that you not make rather obviously silly posts in a thread that's a very interesting discussion of legal principles.

Fair enough. And as to you being calm, I apologize. Even I sometimes fall into the trap of NSG where you assume that just because someone uses an exclaimation mark they are foaming at the mouth;)

I know. It's a habit of mine to post in an angry manner. but really, my co-workers have commented on why I'm pounding away on my keyboard with a... er... shit eatting grin on my face. :D

see, and I've said this before, rarely do I declare my position. I tend to examine and question. try to see both sides of the issue (especially when one side is missing... like what the cops said or did which would only be out in trial.) from then I speculate listen to what others say and fight what they say by focusing on what they say and present.

all the while holding my opinion of the topic to myself.

I've played devils advocate and people though that was my real stance.
I've played both sides of any argument because in reality, I take no sides.
in this case, I never stated whether or not I believe mayes' innocent or that the cops are guilty of incompetance. If anything I assume both sides are telling the truth and work from there. sometimes the simple answer is right infront of us.

Mayes admitted he grew up in a rough neighborhood. he even said he feared for his mother in one article. thus I really didn't fight against the ides of him automatically arming himself.

now look at it from the cops point of view. they were told that mayes house was a storage area or at least a possible selling point. they were not sure so they obtained the warrant.

they arrested the first girl and went to his house and pounded on the door IDing themselves.

Mayes then woke up, possibly missing the ID and just hearing the pounding. possibly because of flashbacks to his old neighborhood, he went to the bedroom where he armed himself and secured his daughter.
he didnt' turn on the lights, made no indication that the home was occupied.

the officers then thought the house empty and proceeded to break in they secured the back door and the front and walked in.

The officer shot then entered the bedroom (weapon was not drawn because they thought the home empty) and was shot by mayes.

both sides (as I said) did what they thought was right. both sides had a loss.

Is mayes guilty? in my opinion no.

could the trial have been tainted because it was the son of the police official? yes, it could've been

However, I still wonder about why he didn't turn on the lights nor call the police because he did nothing wrong and he also had his 18-month old daughter in the house. he instead put the focus of any and all violence in the room where his daughter is.

had those 'thugs' been armed with guns, would the precautions he took prevent her from being hit by a stray bullet? who knows.

but that doesn't mean I believe him guilty.

and that's my position on this case. not guilty and he was not given the best possible defense.

Angry or not, your questions are a misunderstanding. I was applying the presumption of innocence to a discussion of a trial. I know I know, you weren't discussing a trial when you mentioned the jury, testimony and evidence. Frankly, at this point, I don't care. But you're not going to get your misunderstanding of MY points corrected by someone else and I'm not willing to delve into it anymore.

The thread I started is about trial law. You know the answer to most of your questions. There isn't a law. I was talking about the burden of proof for a discussion of a trial. They're rules of debate not law.

You've dragged it into three seperate threads and now required the mods to deal with it. They'll likely have to read pages because you couldn't just drop it. You can't honestly claim you thought I was saying there is a law that requires people on the internet to offer the presumption of innocence. You're welcome to keep posting on this subject. I can't stop you. I just asked that you not make rather obviously silly posts in a thread that's a very interesting discussion of legal principles. except you never answered teh questions when I posted it here.
You assumed I was trying to hijack that thread (one you made to 'educate me' on PoI) when I asked my question while trying to remove any references to this thread
and instead of watching my responce, you pounced.

My questions were on PoI, and when it's applied.

You dragged this thread into that one.

You started talking about the case (and hijack your own thread) in trying to 'stop me' even tho it's ON TOPIC.

of course I'll report such actions to the mods.

however, if we can agree to keep the contents of this thread IN this thread. I'll withdraw my mod request.

After all, I've nothing against you, but it does get irritating when arguments follow from one thread to another.

*snip*

An ex-girlfriend's father, who was a fireman, told me that sad fact that most people in house fires are found burned to a crisp upstairs in a cupboard.

Under stress, people go into primitive mode - there were probably two thoughts running through this guys head.

Protect my daughter.

Hide.

It's is absolutely understandable that he didn't turn any lights on, that he went to his daughter's room and that he did not think it best to call the police first.

The police should have made every effort to ensure he knew they were policemen, absolutely every effort. It reminds me of the case of the guy with a wallet being shot where the police thought it was a gun, where the element of danger is felt, people act accordingly but serious training, as far as I understand, is now put into getting policemen to divorce themselves from the adrenalin and soberly consider the situation to avoid situations like these.

Tragic case.

The police should have made every effort to ensure he knew they were policemen, absolutely every effort. It reminds me of the case of the guy with a wallet being shot where the police thought it was a gun, where the element of danger is felt, people act accordingly but serious training, as far as I understand, is now put into getting policemen to divorce themselves from the adrenalin and soberly consider the situation to avoid situations like these.

Tragic case.
how would the police try to insure people inside knew they were policemen if perhaps, they thought the house empty?

also, I've heard cases where adrenaline is so high that softer sounds get blocked out. the 'blood pounding in the ears' syndrome. yes, he hear the doors being forced open, but again, could he hear them IDing themselves?

and I remember cases where someone is reaching for their wallet DISPITE the officer's repeated warnings of 'don't move' and 'You will get shot if you do not get back down' yet seemingly ignored those warning only to get shot by the officer.

how would the police try to insure people inside knew they were policemen if perhaps, they thought the house empty?

also, I've heard cases where adrenaline is so high that softer sounds get blocked out. the 'blood pounding in the ears' syndrome. yes, he hear the doors being forced open, but again, could he hear them IDing themselves?

and I remember cases where someone is reaching for their wallet DISPITE the officer's repeated warnings of 'don't move' and 'You will get shot if you do not get back down' yet seemingly ignored those warning only to get shot by the officer.

The particular case I remember was of a recent immigrant who didn't fully understand English. Well, you may say, that's not the policemen's fault but the case raised issues, partly absolving the police, in terms of heated situations and false assumptions.

Police are in a stressful job, they also see strong patterns in criminal behaviour, some of which represent danger to themselves. However, this can lead to false conclusions.

More to the point, in the OP case, from what I've read of this guys history, he doesn't seem to be a violent criminal so the more pertinent question is: Why, if he knew for certain it was the police, would he have shot one of them?

It's impossible to say for sure but everything seems to point to overexcited policemen, rushing in, creating a lot of noise, possibly IDing themselves but not very clearly and a frightened man defending himself.

Ultimately, not drawing false conclusions protects policemen themselves as this case proves. Even if he was a violent criminal hell bent on shooting a policeman, perhaps they should have been more circumspect.

I'll try to find the specific wallet case, it shouldn't take me long.

Here you go: the case of Mr. Diallo (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E5D8143BF931A25750C0A9669C8B63) - it raised issues on this exact subject in this thread. It's an NY Times query so let me know if you can read it or I'll find a better outline.

except you never answered teh questions when I posted it here.
You assumed I was trying to hijack that thread (one you made to 'educate me' on PoI) when I asked my question while trying to remove any references to this thread
and instead of watching my responce, you pounced.

My questions were on PoI, and when it's applied.

You dragged this thread into that one.

You started talking about the case (and hijack your own thread) in trying to 'stop me' even tho it's ON TOPIC.

of course I'll report such actions to the mods.

however, if we can agree to keep the contents of this thread IN this thread. I'll withdraw my mod request.

After all, I've nothing against you, but it does get irritating when arguments follow from one thread to another.

Dude, are you claiming you honestly believe that anyone ever suggested you are legally bound to honor the presumption of innocence? Seriously? I was accusing you of a crime? Because absent that, there obivously isn't going to be a reasonable answer to the silly question you asked about whether or not a poster on the internet is required to honor PoI.

That's just petty nonsense.

You're right I refused to answer them here. I refuse to get further dragged in. And you are not going to follow me to another thread to try and force me to answer them. I am NOT obligated to answer your questions and following me to another thread in order to try to force me to engage with you is griefing.

I did not talk about the case in the other thread. I mentioned that when you started talking about how he could have used 911 to collect evidence (which has NO relevance to this case, since he didn't do that) that you are suggesting he should collect evidence to demonstrate his innocence to which PoI applies.

[snipped]
ok focus. can you simply answer this question. do you agree with this suggestion?
however, if we can agree to keep the contents of this thread IN this thread. I'll withdraw my mod request.

After all, I've nothing against you, but it does get irritating when arguments follow from one thread to another.

-- EDIT OUT --

Now, I think it would be really nice of both of you to delete (or perhaps edit) your posts to that Moderation thread. I can seriously believe you need a mod to tell you there's no rule been broken ?

-- EDIT OUT --

Now, I think it would be really nice of both of you to delete (or perhaps edit) your posts to that Moderation thread. I can seriously believe you need a mod to tell you there's no rule been broken ?

I tried to call a truce.

It's now in their hands.

-- EDIT OUT --

Now, I think it would be really nice of both of you to delete (or perhaps edit) your posts to that Moderation thread. I can seriously believe you need a mod to tell you there's no rule been broken ?

I don't. However, I'm not going to delete the posts in the mod thread. I deleted my first post, but he's since accused me of several things and asked for a mod ruling and he appears to have done so in an attempt to drag me back into this conversation.

I simply asked him not to hijack the new thread. It was a reasonable request. Now it's being discussed in three threads. And when I simply said I'm not going to continue to discuss the nonsense that started the mod request, he withdrew his "truce" and asked them to rule. I'm not going to be forced to continue to delve into silly details when he's so obviously not actually attempting to have a debate.

I do appreciate any attempts to calm the issue, both on your part, NA's part and KoL's. I suspect it's just going to waste mod time. Unfortunately, at this point, I doubt there is anything that's going to prevent them from reviewing it.

I don't. However, I'm not going to delete the posts in the mod thread. I deleted my first post, but he's since accused me of several things and asked for a mod ruling and he appears to have done so in an attempt to drag me back into this conversation.

I simply asked him not to hijack the new thread. It was a reasonable request. Now it's being discussed in three threads. And when I simply said I'm not going to continue to discuss the nonsense that started the mod request, he withdrew his "truce" and asked them to rule. I'm not going to be forced to continue to delve into silly details when he's so obviously not actually attempting to have a debate.

I do appreciate any attempts to calm the issue, both on your part, NA's part and KoL's. I suspect it's just going to waste mod time. Unfortunately, at this point, I doubt there is anything that's going to prevent them from reviewing it.
sorry, I mis read your post in the mod forum. withdrawing request.

Next time a simple yes. would do. :p

EDIT: my posts deleted.

Edit II: btw, my purpose was NOT to drag you back in but to get answers to those questions. Seriously and honestly.

Edit III: and Jocaba, when HAVE I ever hijacked a thread by trying to refer it to another thread
(outside of the 'this thread was done before') I really do mean it when I say what happens in a thread stays in that thread.

I hate to break it to the Bush bashers, but no-knock warreants were a problem during the Clinton era too. I'm not old enough to remember if there was anything like this under Reagan or Bush Sr, but I remember first hearing of this in the mid-90's. I commend the father whose home was invaded. He did the right thing. A badge does not confer the right to do things that get normal people arrested.

*edit* I read more. Now I'm really pissed. Why are the cops so concerned about drugs that they disregard every law and tradition to stomp on people? Innocent men, women, and children have been killed, often when cops bust into the wrong home. Such tactics are inexcusable, unless necessary to save someone in imminent danger. Drugs are nowhere near so large a problem that police need to treat people like terrorists. Add thsi to the story of the callous 911 operator recently, and the need for the right to keep weapons for self-defense is obvious. When the watchdog gets rabies, what choice do you have?

sorry, I mis read your post in the mod forum. withdrawing request.

Next time a simple yes. would do. :p

EDIT: my posts deleted.

Edit II: btw, my purpose was NOT to drag you back in but to get answers to those questions. Seriously and honestly.

Edit III: and Jocaba, when HAVE I ever hijacked a thread by trying to refer it to another thread
(outside of the 'this thread was done before') I really do mean it when I say what happens in a thread stays in that thread.

You don't get to force people to answer your questions. I chose not to. No one else chose to reply to them in this thread.

Following me and others to another thread to bring up nonsense questions about web behavior is not accomplishing anything, and at a point, it becomes griefing, though that point isn't for me to decide. You're not going to get an answer to those questions. Perhaps you're serious, but it's hard to fathom that you don't know the answer to them. They're rather silly questions.

You involved the mods and two threads to get answers to those questions. Perhaps next time you can take a step back and ask yourself why you're doing it. I can't see any rational reason why all of this was necessary.

Here you go: the case of Mr. Diallo (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E5D8143BF931A25750C0A9669C8B63) - it raised issues on this exact subject in this thread. It's an NY Times query so let me know if you can read it or I'll find a better outline.
I Think that was particually nasty because of that 'stop and frisk' ruling and the fact that those officers seem to have jumped the gun.

You don't get to force people to answer your questions. I chose not to. No one else chose to reply to them in this thread.

Following me and others to another thread to bring up nonsense questions about web behavior is not accomplishing anything, and at a point, it becomes griefing, though that point isn't for me to decide. You're not going to get an answer to those questions. Perhaps you're serious, but it's hard to fathom that you don't know the answer to them. They're rather silly questions.

You involved the mods and two threads to get answers to those questions. Perhaps next time you can take a step back and ask yourself why you're doing it. I can't see any rational reason why all of this was necessary.
excuse me Jocabia. YOU involved this thread in the other one by accusing me of Hijacking it. You were Griefing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) me with the accusation that I was Hijacking a thread you made to 'educate me'.
Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

that's when I went to the mods. Had you kept it in THIS thread, then no mod action.

but it does seem like you want to continue this, so should I repost my mod request?

Let's keep it to a simple yes or no.

nevermind, I'm tired and going to enjoy my day off. so let me resubmit and let the mods deal with it.

excuse me Jocabia. YOU involved this thread in the other one by accusing me of Hijacking it. You were Griefing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) me with the accusation that I was Hijacking a thread you made to 'educate me'.


that's when I went to the mods. Had you kept it in THIS thread, then no mod action.

but it does seem like you want to continue this, so should I repost my mod request?

Let's keep it to a simple yes or no.

If you think I'm guilty of griefing. Report it. If you don't, then don't. Don't threaten me. I replied to your continued posts on this topic. Posts that included several edits in order to keep telling me more and more about you're little game.

You admitted to bringing questions from this thread to that thread. I accused you of doing so and pointed out that questions about the rules of debate are no relevant to a thread on trial law.

You are not getting answers to your questions. You are not welcome to hijack the other thread. What you are attempting is patently obvious. One wonders what your opinion of the mods must be that you think they don't see what you're doing.

Griefing? Seriously? Make fifty threads for you like. I suspect I'm not the only one that will eventually lose patience.

If you have an issue with me, there's an ignore button. If not, then stop complaining. I think you'll discover I've not broken any rules in REQUESTING that you not hijack a thread I started. I think you'll find that it griefing does not apply to replying to a post that quotes me and REQUESTING that you not hijack a thread.

Whether you deleted your posts or not, the mods are going to review all three threads. You've ensured that. So you've wasted my time, your time and their time. And in the end, you failed in your goal. I still haven't answered your questions. You cannot threaten, cajole or irritate into answering them.

I hate to break it to the Bush bashers, but no-knock warreants were a problem during the Clinton era too ...

Well, most people would just go "wtf is LT ranting about?" but I have way too much time on my hands, so I searched the thread for the word "Bush."

I'm pretty sure this is what you are replying to, it's the only time any poster before you has brought up Bush:

Care to explain relevence to this thread or do you think we should take this elsewhere?The event took place in 2001. Bush came to power in 2000.

We have had an interesting 8 years, mainly characterised by the loss of sympathies overseas, the loss of public sympathies for our own governments in domestic politics, and - and this is the relevent part - the continued rape of the constitution.

So... "when did no-knock warrants become standard procedure"? The removal of constitutional protections began in earnest, about the same time they stopped Florida recounts.

Just helping out, since your Quote button seems to be broken ... :p

Ok from the BG I can tell this is a biased report...*continues reading* ..

ok I can't say. That shit gives nothing. I'd have to look up further info. Only a bit was to the act.. what happened.

In general I don't like cops .. or well its not the cops.. its that boys in blue fraternity type shit I don't like. I'll have to come to this.

My bias statement wasn't against the cops ... this story set the dude (shooter) as a harmless victim right out, that songs my alarm bells. I'll have to know more.

This is why I couldn't be a lawyer. It;s one thing if you do something and will never do it again, but it's another when you make a life out of something and use the loop holes or damn good council to weasel out of it. Again , I'm not stating an opinion on THIS. This isn't enough.

nevermind, I'm tired and going to enjoy my day off. so let me resubmit and let the mods deal with it.

In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Nation States General, we commend to Almighty Mod our thread Man Shoots Cop;
And we commit this thread to the ground; earth to earth; ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
The Mod bless it and keep it, the Mod make Their face to shine upon it and be gracious unto it and give it peace.

Amen.

Oh and another thing. Say so and so does X. Is all that is accounted against him or her X? Or does ABC that he or she has done within a respective period also held into account? Yes and No .. Depends?

Does it depend on the crime, or the situation or the money or the council?

Oh and another thing. Say so and so does X. Is all that is accounted against him or her X? Or does ABC that he or she has done within a respective period also held into account? Yes and No .. Depends?

No, that's the last straw. I told you, after you hit your sister, that you'd have to be on your best behaviour during dinner, and now look what you've gone and done. Bedtime, young man!

*sends Naturality to bed with no tea*

Ok from the BG I can tell this is a biased report...*continues reading* ..

ok I can't say. That shit gives nothing. I'd have to look up further info. Only a bit was to the act.. what happened.

In general I don't like cops .. or well its not the cops.. its that boys in blue fraternity type shit I don't like. I'll have to come to this.

My bias statement wasn't against the cops ... this story set the dude (shooter) as a harmless victim right out, that songs my alarm bells. I'll have to know more.

This is why I couldn't be a lawyer. It;s one thing if you do something and will never do it again, but it's another when you make a life out of something and use the loop holes or damn good council to weasel out of it. Again , I'm not stating an opinion on THIS. This isn't enough.

There are several links in the thread. I searched the web for a day and found everything I could. A lot of the original links from some of these articles are missing. Not sure why. I could not find one article that sides with the officers in this case. That sends up alarm bells.

I could find that a judge has already overturned the sentencing. I could find that the lawyer was incompetent. I can find that the new lawyer was fired for taking the case. I can find that the forensic expert wasn't an expert, though he testified that he was. I can find that the only two witnesses who were not the shooter or the cops disappeared, even though those same two witnesses were discovered committing a crime and were the subjects of the warrant. They were never charged. I can find that the current explanation of events from the officers point of view makes no sense.

Everything about this case screams that there is a problem.

Oh and another thing. Say so and so does X. Is all that is accounted against him or her X? Or does ABC that he or she has done within a respective period also held into account? Yes and No .. Depends?

Does it depend on the crime, or the situation or the money or the council?

Well, if only you'd recorded yourself typing that post, we'd have a record of it. If only.

*snip research*

Everything about this case screams that there is a problem.

So ... yay for the appeal ?

Anyone remember that time when they broke into another house and killed that 90 year old? I would have thought that they ****ing learned the last time.

(Still that woman managed to get 3 shots off before they basicly emptyed whole clips into her)

Cops have died, innocent people have died. Haven't they learned yet?

This along with the reloading their gun to stop a suspect and shooting again even though the guy hasn't moved (Because he's dying)

Sheeh all they need to do is run into some guy who' s got an arsenal and is one of those anti government types.

We'd have a warzone.

So ... yay for the appeal ?

I would be SHOCKED if they didn't get an appeal. Mississippi has problems, but this seems just blatant. I would think the representation would be grounds enough, but honestly I'm not that family with MS.

There are several links in the thread. I searched the web for a day and found everything I could. A lot of the original links from some of these articles are missing. Not sure why. I could not find one article that sides with the officers in this case. That sends up alarm bells.

I could find that a judge has already overturned the sentencing. I could find that the lawyer was incompetent. I can find that the new lawyer was fired for taking the case. I can find that the forensic expert wasn't an expert, though he testified that he was. I can find that the only two witnesses who were not the shooter or the cops disappeared, even though those same two witnesses were discovered committing a crime and were the subjects of the warrant. They were never charged. I can find that the current explanation of events from the officers point of view makes no sense.

Everything about this case screams that there is a problem.


Scary man. How is anyone to ever know that their shit will be handled correctly?

Reminds me of some medical classes I've been through. I was appalled at the amount of bullshit that went on. You can't freakin imagine man. Basically .. your ass will learn once you are thrown in to it. No this wasn't nursing.. nor doctors.. but i'd bet something similar to this goes on. You just don't know til you are there.

Anyone remember that time when they broke into another house and killed that 90 year old? I would have thought that they ****ing learned the last time.

(Still that woman managed to get 3 shots off before they basicly emptyed whole clips into her)

Cops have died, innocent people have died. Haven't they learned yet?

This along with the reloading their gun to stop a suspect and shooting again even though the guy hasn't moved (Because he's dying)

Sheeh all they need to do is run into some guy who' s got an arsenal and is one of those anti government types.

Once he realized he's killed 3 or 4 cops he might just go out in a blaze of carnage that would turn the area into a warzone.

no. I didn't read that.. never heard it. That's fucked up. I've never understood why someone would want to rape and elderly person. I can understand rob but not rape.. but I guess it goes back to rape is not at its core sexual ( although sorry I think it is sometimes) but power .. aka down right meaness.

Well, if only you'd recorded yourself typing that post, we'd have a record of it. If only.


Oh har har. You can do better than that. Let me have it bro!

No, that's the last straw. I told you, after you hit your sister, that you'd have to be on your best behaviour during dinner, and now look what you've gone and done. Bedtime, young man!

*sends Naturality to bed with no tea*


Tea! Fuck tea. :p

I have asked JuNii and Jocabia to put an end (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13701006&postcount=5) to their dispute. Please help them achieve this by not quoting any of their posts that do not refer, directly and exclusively, to the topic of the original post.

no. I didn't read that.. never heard it. That's fucked up. I've never understood why someone would want to rape and elderly person. I can understand rob but not rape.. but I guess it goes back to rape is not at its core sexual ( although sorry I think it is sometimes) but power .. aka down right meaness.
Actually I was wrong, she only managed to get one shot off and the rest was from insane cops causing a richocet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston

When they realized they had nothing in the house they planted stuff.

how would the police try to insure people inside knew they were policemen if perhaps, they thought the house empty?

If they had been a trained SWAT team, I don't think they would have made that assumption. From what I understand of their procedure, they wouldn't act as if the house was empty until they had checked every room and verified that fact.

If they had been a trained SWAT team, I don't think they would have made that assumption. From what I understand of their procedure, they wouldn't act as if the house was empty until they had checked every room and verified that fact.

Correct. It's assumed that there is a suspect in every closet, room, and crawlspace until it's cleared.

There is one thing I don't get..... Even ignoring the clusterfuck of bad policework that led to the unfortunate death of Ron Jones. How... and seriously... how in the name of all that is our Universe could you possibly convince any 12 rationale, reasonable, or even mildly intelligent people that this man was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

I mean. From every article I've read. The entire case is one big pile of stinking reasonable doubt. And even if you don't exclusively believe Mayes variant of the story, you'd have to somehow believe that this man who had no criminal record laid in wait and intentionally fired upon an officer of the law and then AFTER firing and killing an officer he then decided to simply give up?

What did he just thinking shooting a cop would be full of LULZ? It doesn't make any sense. No scenario that would make him guilty makes sense. And you know, I read an article that indicates the jury didn't care about the case at all but it was two things the lawyer said that led to him being found guilty. I'll see if I can't find the article about it.

If they had been a trained SWAT team, I don't think they would have made that assumption. From what I understand of their procedure, they wouldn't act as if the house was empty until they had checked every room and verified that fact.

true, and the Reason magazine article mentions an Ad Hoc team.

some articles also mention that Mayes fired as soon as Ron entered the doorway. yet only a few mentions his gun was holstered. so maybe they were checking each room and Ron just plain fucked up.

It comes down to that the stupid PoS sat there and pointed the gun at the door with the intent of killing anyone or anything that came in the door, so clearly he didnt care who or what was in his house, he meant to kill on sight "in defence"

My only question on the issues is: wtf were the cops thinking going on a drug raid without body protection [that is unless the guy who shot the cop pulled a headshot]

There is one thing I don't get..... Even ignoring the clusterfuck of bad policework that led to the unfortunate death of Ron Jones. How... and seriously... how in the name of all that is our Universe could you possibly convince any 12 rationale, reasonable, or even mildly intelligent people that this man was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

My best guess? He's black.


It comes down to that the stupid PoS sat there and pointed the gun at the door with the intent of killing anyone or anything that came in the door, so clearly he didnt care who or what was in his house, he meant to kill on sight "in defence"

Because someone with good intentions is likely to be breaking into a home?

My only question on the issues is: wtf were the cops thinking going on a drug raid without body protection [that is unless the guy who shot the cop pulled a headshot]

They were wearing armor, although I don't think it was the type such teams usually wear. The bullet managed to get under it, or something like that.

My only question on the issues is: wtf were the cops thinking going on a drug raid without body protection [that is unless the guy who shot the cop pulled a headshot]

some of the articles did state that one bullet entered below the vest. so it sounds like a low abdomen shot.

They were wearing armor, although I don't think it was the type such teams usually wear. The bullet managed to get under it, or something like that.

They were wearing standarad raid gear. Which is basically a bullet proof vest with some head gear.

It comes down to that the stupid PoS sat there and pointed the gun at the door with the intent of killing anyone or anything that came in the door, so clearly he didnt care who or what was in his house, he meant to kill on sight "in defence"

My only question on the issues is: wtf were the cops thinking going on a drug raid without body protection [that is unless the guy who shot the cop pulled a headshot]

He meant to defend himself against anyone who invaded into his home under the presumptiion that they intended to do him harm.

You sir fail. Hardcore.

I read a little blurb in the latest NRA magazine that was funny. Here's the abbreviated version.

A guy breaks into this house. The owner pulls a gun on him.

Burglar says "Shoot me."

Owner does. Owner calls 911 and goes to check on burglar.

Burglar says "Don't shoot me again."

Sometimes you have to watch what you ask for. You might get it.