Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: May 11

UK

#597652 Oct 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be stupid, you moron.
If a guy is in a car, and you smash the windshield with a club, that's an assault on the guy, and the club is a deadly weapon.
That's what you said you did.
You slipped through on a technicality.
I'd like to know how he "settled out of court" on a criminal case.

Do the police in the US actually hand the contact details of the victims to their alleged asailant? Seems a little unsafe to me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#597653 Oct 2, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you were convicted, not let go.
You are convicted violent criminal.
OMG.

O__O

I was charged, not convicted.

BIIIIIG deference, purfesir.

Since: May 11

UK

#597654 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been through the US court system, the jail system and the whole "attorney" thing.
I had no criminal record, none at all. I broke some guys windshield of his car and they arrested me on assault with a deadly weapon. No really, they thought I could potentially kill that car.
Anyway, they arrested me on assault and threw me in the lock up. Even though I had no criminal record (and I'm white, which you say gives me a free pass) they would not release me on OR. They set my bail, a white man with no criminal record, at $50,000.
You don't even know how wrong you are.
I'm not seeing the word "club" in here.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#597655 Oct 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be stupid, you moron.
If a guy is in a car, and you smash the windshield with a club, that's an assault on the guy, and the club is a deadly weapon.
That's what you said you did.
You slipped through on a technicality.
That's what the stupid cop said. "Well the guy was in the car!"

Luckily, the courts were smarter than the stupid cop.

And you.

Since: May 11

UK

#597656 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with you and coming to your own conclusions, false as they may be?
As I told you earlier, I broke a windshield. There's no such thing as "assault with a deadly weapon" on a windshield.
It was a holiday weekend and the courts were closed on Monday, so Tuesday morning I was scheduled to go to court for arraignment. I went to court, sat in the cage with the rest of the guys, and that's it. My case never went before a judge, I was never arraigned.
According to the public defender, the court has 48 hours to arraign somebody. I was booked in at 9 PM on Friday, which counts as a day, then I sat in court all day on Tuesday, which counted as the second day. Since I wasn't arraigned, they had to release me.
Within a few days I was put in contact with the guy I got into a fight with and broke his windshield, settled out of court and I had his windshield repaired.
I have no criminal record.
not seeing the word, "club" here either....

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#597657 Oct 2, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
I hear you have a mouth full of cock quite often.
Here's your English lesson for the day
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2636f66424/d...

More on that subject
Bongo

East Islip, NY

#597659 Oct 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be stupid, you moron.
If a guy is in a car, and you smash the windshield with a club, that's an assault on the guy, and the club is a deadly weapon.
That's what you said you did.
You slipped through on a technicality.
If there is anything you really really know about, that would be slipping through on a technicality, right. This may also include slipping on the bathhouse floor.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#597660 Oct 2, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to know how he "settled out of court" on a criminal case.
Do the police in the US actually hand the contact details of the victims to their alleged asailant? Seems a little unsafe to me.
He'll have an "explanation" for that one too.

He also said he wasn't charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Then he said the court "dropped" it to vandalism.

Dropped what?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#597661 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it time for you to post more derogatory homosexual slurs about cocks in my mouth?
It wasn't derogatory. Why do you have a problem with me exposing your homosexuality ?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#597662 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the stupid cop said. "Well the guy was in the car!"
Luckily, the courts were smarter than the stupid cop.
And you.
You lucked out.

From your description of your crime, you were guilty of assault with a deadly weapon on the occupant of the car.

That's a felony, punishable in California by 2, 3 or 4 years in the state prison.

You and Skom should be co-felons.

Sooner or later they'll get you if you keep beating your wife.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#597663 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG.
O__O
I was charged, not convicted.
BIIIIIG deference, purfesir.
I think you are lying once again.

You were found not guilty ? Was the judge drunk or stupid ?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#597664 Oct 2, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I enjoyed reading your post Ians
Really? I'm glad of that. And thanks for saying so.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#597665 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the stupid cop said. "Well the guy was in the car!"
Luckily, the courts were smarter than the stupid cop.
And you.
The cop should have shot you.

Since: May 11

UK

#597666 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG.
O__O
I was charged, not convicted.
BIIIIIG deference, purfesir.
you say you were charged, not convicted, you admit the offence, you admit liability by "settling out of court".

If this is the case how are you different to a criminal you want to string-up, burn or lock away? Just the fact you escaped conviction? Your MAMMOTH HYPOCRISY is showing again.

If you have no criminal conviction then why did you "settle out of court"? This is a civil remedy not a criminal remedy. You mean you were convicted and ordered to pay restitution? LMAO

I think that's more likely to be the case but you got caught in your own argument related to how you feel criminals should be treated so you decided criminals who get away with it get a pass when it comes to your own ideas of criminal justice....because it would have to include you.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#597667 Oct 2, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'm lookin' forward to it.

Since: May 11

UK

#597668 Oct 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He'll have an "explanation" for that one too.
He also said he wasn't charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Then he said the court "dropped" it to vandalism.
Dropped what?
*whispers* I think he means...pleaded no contest to a lesser charge...

but he has no record...honest.

It's like Walter 'RiversideRedneck' Mitty's World of Fantastical Whimsy in here LOL.
LineDazzle

Manchester, UK

#597669 Oct 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the stupid cop said. "Well the guy was in the car!"
Luckily, the courts were smarter than the stupid cop.
And you.
The court doesn't drop crimes, they drop sentences and punishments, imbecile!

Looks like you are telling a lie!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#597670 Oct 2, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
again...
What one side considers evidence another considers nonsense.
So.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
The parting of the Red Sea was once a miracle now miracles are reduced to polarised reflections in office windows and mildew stains in old fountains, yet the 'religious' have no problem accepting these things as irrefutable proof of supernature.
I don't beleive the Red Sea "was parted".

You can, if you choose. It doesn't mean it occurred.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof in existence of an afterlife or supernature or gods. If there were it would be a cause celebre and the churches would be full.
Sure there is, you just don't want to accept it.

Self.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if someone picked up something on a tape recorder which sounded vaguely like someone talking because the chances are it was someone talking.
That is your perogative. Just because you don't accept that Science can discover this.

You have a odd sense of what is Science and what is not.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I own an IR reflective suit from my time in the army looking at me in it through a thermal imager would make me appear 'spectral'.
Great - you've just debunked why some people would hoax an apparition. I wonder how many people actually know this, and how many people have actually triued to attempt a hoax using this method. I doubt it was. But hey, what do I know, huh? I'm just Agnostic.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has yet 'come through' from the spirit world to tell us what a mind numbingly boring time they're having worshipping god.
I too have also wondered this, and have pretty much concluded what the religious world claims as "heaven" is falsely conveyed to the world. That is why I chose to leave Christianity many years ago.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You're telling me that just because something is picked up on a 'mechanism' it becomes scientific evidence? Really.....?
It is evidence. What do you call evidence? Just because you claim it be "circumstantial", no matter - it is still evidence.

In fact, circumstantial evidence, was what made much of Science it is today. "The Sun revolves around the Earth" was circumstantial, but later proved absurd. But brought about the correct belief of the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Your argument is invalid.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Id be very interested to see where I said that. There are issues like calibration, anti tamper seals, controls and tempest monitoring where electronic equipment are concerned. Sticking a video camera in a dark room or a tape recorder left running in an empty house do not a valid experiment make.
HUH?
"You're telling me that just because something is picked up on a 'mechanism' it becomes scientific evidence?"

You just stated it in the statement above. Whereas, I have never stated you said anything, so please stop insinuating I had stated something I never did or by putting words into my mouth. You sound like a "Christian".

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#597671 Oct 2, 2013
<<continued to MisterCharrington>>
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to tell me what happens to my immortal soul then insist for the sake of your argument that I must believe in such a thing as a soul before you can continue then you have already lost. Your opening gambit is a requirement that I lower the standard of proof which is required to convince me.
I have no clue on what will happen to your "immortal soul".
Why would I? DO you think I am a god?
I'm not. Chill out MC - Go sit back down and take deep breathes, before you hyperventilate.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are attempting to do once again is shift the burden of proof. You are saying there is an afterlife and I should behave a certain way to have a good one.
This forum doesn't require proof, so please stop projecting some unfounded action to occur.
Like I said already - I could care less on what you believe in, but with you making these unfounded claims - with this incident is true or false, is just bologna and a very "Christian-like" tactic.
Some Atheist you turned out to be, especially when you act like a "Christian".
*sighs*
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I say it has not been proven to my satisfaction on the preponderance of evidence so it is up to you to rebut.
No it isn't. I have only one requirement, and that is to openly post my opinions within this public forum.
With you thinking "it is up to you to rebut" is an incomplete thought.
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
The default position is that there is no afterlife the positive assertion that such a thing exists is yours.
Why isn't the default position "there is an afterlife"?
Did you just make this up?
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
When one goes into court for example the task is to determine whether an act took place. Guilt v No-guilt....did an act or omission take place which caused a particular outcome. i.e. Did it happen?(something happened - positive assertion).
...and there has been plenty of times that circumstantial evidence has been presented.
DOH!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#597672 Oct 2, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
I guess it doesn't matter what I wrote at all, because no matter what I did write - "sweating is not an act of will", and is a process that occurs through some scientific process.
Yes, your illustration didn't undermine your argument. It just failed to support it.

But don't write off sweating as an act of will so quickly. I'm sure that there are people that can do it or that can train themselves to do it. What's harder for many of us is to believe something that we find unbelievable as an act of free will.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min RoSesz 590,393
Holocaust or Black Slavery which was worse? (Aug '08) 3 min shay 471
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Stilgar Fifrawi 839,297
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 min RiccardoFire 40,505
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 8 min andet1987 1,839
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 13 min andet1987 1,426
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 23 min andet1987 5,910
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 25 min RiccardoFire 4,483
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 33 min Charlie Sheen 271,359
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Mike thunkit 100,018
More from around the web