Fatboy: Exercise 1st Amendment, we'll...

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#22 Mar 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
So, just to clarify...you jump to conclusions and make unsupportable statements without any factual basis.
I've got that right, huh?
And you're the same moron who complains incessantly about media "bias"...right?
I just want to be sure I'm clear.
woof
I admit I'm biased, CNN doesn't.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#23 Mar 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Respectfully Paco, in this day of mass shootings by mentally unstable people with guns...it does constitute sufficient cause.
woof
Pansy ass public officials...and "lawyers."

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#25 Mar 13, 2013
You cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the same with all the "inducing panic" charges. Only ones panicking are the cops and fireman( probably because they had to leave before writing down all the passwords to the porn they were watching)
Yep. God forbid if you walk away from your suitcase or accidentally leave a package an a park bench. This isn't Belfast or London circa 1980.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#26 Mar 13, 2013
Any more, if you raise your voice the slightest amount, even when you have a valid grievance, you're considered "unstable" and that's what they'll use to get your guns. All it takes is a medical professional to determine that you may be a threat to yourself or others; or the mere accusation of a violent threat.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#27 Mar 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Respectfully Paco, in this day of mass shootings by mentally unstable people with guns...it does constitute sufficient cause.
woof
Probable cause is on a specific person. What another person has, or several people have done is irrelevant.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#28 Mar 13, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Probable cause is on a specific person. What another person has, or several people have done is irrelevant.
A probable cause determination isn't made in a vacuum.

woof

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#29 Mar 13, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Any more, if you raise your voice the slightest amount, even when you have a valid grievance, you're considered "unstable" and that's what they'll use to get your guns. All it takes is a medical professional to determine that you may be a threat to yourself or others; or the mere accusation of a violent threat.
I question whether than is constitutional, that decision is supposed to be in a court.

It's like when the gun banners say that the terror watch list should disqualify.

There is no judicial check on that list.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#30 Mar 13, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Any more, if you raise your voice the slightest amount, even when you have a valid grievance, you're considered "unstable" and that's what they'll use to get your guns. All it takes is a medical professional to determine that you may be a threat to yourself or others; or the mere accusation of a violent threat.
Nobody commenting here has any information whatsoever on the credibility of the person making the complaint, or whether the police interviewed other witnesses and confirmed the complaining witness' statement.

Without that information, you can't draw any conclusions whatsoever as to the propriety of the court's order.

woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#31 Mar 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A probable cause determination isn't made in a vacuum.
woof
If three people wearing Arab garb walk down the street, pull a gun out, and shoot someone, it is not probable cause to stop and search a fourth person wearing Arab garb who is merely walking down the street, right?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#32 Mar 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody commenting here has any information whatsoever on the credibility of the person making the complaint, or whether the police interviewed other witnesses and confirmed the complaining witness' statement.
Without that information, you can't draw any conclusions whatsoever as to the propriety of the court's order.
woof
I know of the propensity of government officials to officially report things simply because they know the report will always be treated as fact, often violating the due process rights of citizens, because doncha know, if it's written down, it must be true....

The solution, of course, is to always record your adversarial meetings. I do.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#33 Mar 14, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to think you know or else you wouldn't be so blasť about it. The woman had no weapons at the forum. She's accused by ONE angry, petty county drone of threatening violence. She denies it. She has no criminal history. That is not a reason to confiscate her property.
I have no idea what happened at the meeting. I know she was charged with a crime. I know that she was given a choice of a low bond and surrendering her weapons or a higher bond and keeping them. I know she made the choice of surrendering them to pay the lower bond. I know a plea will be negotiated or a trial will be held to determine her responsibility in all this. I know that if the charges are dismissed or she is acquitted or if she is convicted of a non-disabling offense her weapons will be returned to her.

See how clear things become when you analyze something rationally rather than engaging in emotional hysteria?

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#34 Mar 14, 2013
She need to have her attorney file discovery to get the tape of that meeting. The system is the problem, not the lady. They gained info about that woman's guns at the police dept. when the cowards called the pigs on her. I know how these filthy bureaucrats work at these meetings. They sit up there like they're gods, and will shut you down if you voice opposition to their arrogant proceedings.

The liberals are scary and becoming too authoritative. A police state would not be good for any of use who's not a cop or a politician. The pansy liberal cowards have got to go. A bunch of scary bytches have taken over the Democrat party. It wasn't like this in the 60's and 70's, people didn't support this police state BS! Now, you dirty f'king hippies put on suits and started oppressing people that you were supposed to support with police harassment. You're f'king sellouts! Your asses got to go.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#35 Mar 14, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what happened at the meeting. I know she was charged with a crime. I know that she was given a choice of a low bond and surrendering her weapons or a higher bond and keeping them. I know she made the choice of surrendering them to pay the lower bond. I know a plea will be negotiated or a trial will be held to determine her responsibility in all this. I know that if the charges are dismissed or she is acquitted or if she is convicted of a non-disabling offense her weapons will be returned to her.
See how clear things become when you analyze something rationally rather than engaging in emotional hysteria?
By all accounts her rights have been violated based on hearsay. This is one reason I'm glad Ohio doesn't require firearms registration.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#36 Mar 14, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>By all accounts her rights have been violated based on hearsay. This is one reason I'm glad Ohio doesn't require firearms registration.
You don't know what hearsay is. You should just cool it on this one.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#37 Mar 14, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>By all accounts her rights have been violated based on hearsay. This is one reason I'm glad Ohio doesn't require firearms registration.
I've missed the hearsay in this exchange, could you highlight it for me, please?

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#38 Mar 14, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what hearsay is. You should just cool it on this one.
Evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath.

Tell me why this doesn't apply.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#39 Mar 14, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text> Evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath.
Tell me why this doesn't apply.
Its an admission by a Party-opponent.

Rule 801 (D)(2).

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/LegalResources/...

woof

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#41 Mar 14, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Its an admission by a Party-opponent.
Rule 801 (D)(2).
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/LegalResources/...
woof
So it comes down to "he said, she said" and naturally the cops believe a government drone.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#43 Mar 14, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>So it comes down to "he said, she said" and naturally the cops believe a government drone.
You seem to be having a difficult time with how the initial processes of the criminal justice system work.

Here:

1) A complaint is made to the police.

2) Police respond, investigate, and make on the spot evaluations about the credibility of the complaining and percipient witnesses, and the alleged perpetrator.

3) Police use the information gathered to make a decision whether to make an arrest and refer the matter to the court/prosecutor, and whether to release him or her on a PR bond prior to arraignment/initial appearance.

4) Defendant makes an appearance in court at arraignment where the court advises him/her of the charges, and sets the conditions of bond based upon the information previously gathered by the police and any other relevant evidence presented by the attorneys involved.

If it comes down to a "he said/she said" battle, the credibility and number of witnesses will drive the train.

You don't have any idea who or how many people heard her statements, or specifically what she said.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#44 Mar 14, 2013
You cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
Because a parasite was scared by someone reading the constitution. Try it sometime they get red in the face and the smell of sh1t fills the air. When that happens their fellow parasites aka cops and prosecutors swarm around frantically burning the constiution to try to get the stench out if the room.
What's funny about your theory is that about 75 to 85% of the time that I cite the Constitution here on this forum I get accused of being a communist by people who think like you.

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sean Hannity 30 min White Fangs 872
Now it has a name: Crossfire Hurricane 43 min They cannot kill ... 186
Are Whites A Minority In Columbus? 3 hr Foxnews 8
News Columbus to pay $30,000 to man stomped by polic... 3 hr They cannot kill ... 19
News BrewDog opens watering hole in Franklinton Upda... 4 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Plasma donation 5 hr Reality Speaks 10
News When pharmacy-benefit manager cuts put lives in... 6 hr Reality Speaks 5

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages