[quote]Could have guessed which side you would fall on. Pro cop killer. <hr></blockquote>
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's a Republican;he voted for a man like George W. Bush
I know!. If Gore was president we wouldn't be in this stinking war. Planes would be crashing into buildings and suicide bombers would have a field day every week in our cities, but we wouldn't be in a war!
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]If Gore was president we wouldn't be in this stinking war. Planes would be crashing into buildings and suicide bombers would have a field day every week in our cities, but we wouldn't be in a war!<hr></blockquote>
Really not too sure about that Outsider. Gore and Bush were so indistingishable in the Presidential 'debates' that they could easily have been in the same party. (They agreed with each other point for point in 80%+ of all issues discussed).
Furthermore, democrats are always perceived as being the non-hawkish party and in a national emergency like Sept 11, they would be under huge pressure to deliver the goods; the last thing they would want would is be to be seen thrughout the nation and world as wimping out. As in the UK, where their PM, Tony Blair, a Labor leader (who is in a similar ideological space to Gore) was even more hawkish than the Bush White House when the attacks happened. Conservatives have less to prove re. defense issues and military readiness etc. Democrats are aware have to demonstrate that they can deliver as well. And btw... I believe that more conflicts the US has gotten into have been under a Democrat president than a Republican.
<strong>I know!. If Gore was president we wouldn't be in this stinking war. Planes would be crashing into buildings and suicide bombers would have a field day every week in our cities, but we wouldn't be in a war!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets not forget that the Transportation secretary is a Democrat. He was the one who portentially saved thousands of lives by called the FFA, not wasting time getting approval of the silly President, to bring down all planes and shut down all airports on September 11.
[quote]Calls it likes I sees it. <hr></blockquote>
It's finally been proved that you're blind then.
Every time someone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling. That's poor. If you think you're right, argue her points.
Back to the topic. All that has happened here is that the sentence has been overturned and he will be resentenced. No one is going to be freed over this. The man was found guilty in a court of law and the conviction stands.
As I'm against the death penalty, I'm glad that the sentence was overturned. There are a ton of people out there that have killed law enforcement officials, but they end up rotting in prison for the rest of their lives. That's what I believe is going to happen to this guy. If they sentence him to death again, he'll probably spend another 20 years on death row and die of old age.
That's his job. He wouln't be in his office if he couldn't do the most basic of his tasks. It's not like he did something extra-ordinary. He did his job and made the right decision. I don't think all Democrats are heartless monsters you know.
It's finally been proved that you're blind then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Am I blind or the only one who can see
I do believe what I said. I think people who support these lost causes are supporting some kind of anti-establishment movement. Like the anarchist "protesters" at all the global meetings. It's pro-destruction and pro-kill the pigs. It's pro cop killer. If you support Jamal you are supporting a cop killer.
[quote]I do believe what I said. I think people who support these lost causes are supporting some kind of anti-establishment movement. Like the anarchist "protesters" at all the global meetings. It's pro-destruction and pro-kill the pigs. It's pro cop
killer. If you support Jamal you are supporting a cop killer.<hr></blockquote>
All I did, Scott, was to point out the numerous, and well-known irregularities surrounding the original trial. Why is this so unacceptable to you? Are you so trusting of the system that by default, everyone always gets a fair trial, the playing field is always level, racism doesnt exist, police departments are uncorruptible, and so on? Why does pointing out trashy trials make me a "copkiller supporter"? When procedure is compromised to accomodate an easy conviction (or popular opinion), it often backfires. Perhaps you aren't bothered, but that of course is your right.
If he had been found guilty in an untainted trial, then he would have had no grounds to have become a cause celebre.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
All I did, Scott, was to point out the numerous, and well-known irregularities surrounding the original trial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did more than that. At least three things in your 10 item list have nothing to do with case. One I found to be borderline. The remaining 4 are are varying degrees of value to the case itself.
<strong> All that has happened here is that the sentence has been overturned and he will be resentenced. ..The man was found guilty in a court of law and the conviction stands. </strong><hr></blockquote>
thanks, that's what i wanted to know. now as a cost savings i suggest he, zacharias moussaoui (sp?) and john walker share the same cell
Do us all a favor and Shutup about shit you don't know. Accusing people of supporting Cop killers is stretching things way too far. Reading your blathering rebuttals is an exercise in pain. You are the exact reason why Dumb Americans threads thrive online.
Well, he killed a cop, and she supports setting him free. What part of that don't you understand? That is supporting a cop killer............................................ .......
<strong>Well, he killed a cop, and she supports setting him free. What part of that don't you understand? That is supporting a cop killer............................................ .......</strong><hr></blockquote>
It looks to me like she supports fair trials for all people.
Comments
If you check out <a href="http://www.danielfaulkner.com/" target="_blank">http://www.danielfaulkner.com/</a> you'll note that the coroner admitted he wasn't sure what caliber the bullet was but scribbled down .44
He really had no idea.
Also, Mumia's former lawyers believe the "confession" from the man who claims to have shot Faulkner is not credible.
I wish that damn judge would have let the mob guy testify. That could have changed everything.
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.
He's guilty-fry him. Take France along with him. What a bunch of pathetic assholes.............................
<strong>
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's a Republican;he voted for a man like George W. Bush
What else is there to say?
<strong>
This is ridiculous. Because she's actually researched this subject and knows her stuff, she's "pro-cop killer"? Are you insane? You can't make blanket assumptions about people like that, man. Talk about bad form. I know you're not 13, don't make yourself look like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Calls it likes I sees it.
Really not too sure about that Outsider. Gore and Bush were so indistingishable in the Presidential 'debates' that they could easily have been in the same party. (They agreed with each other point for point in 80%+ of all issues discussed).
Furthermore, democrats are always perceived as being the non-hawkish party and in a national emergency like Sept 11, they would be under huge pressure to deliver the goods; the last thing they would want would is be to be seen thrughout the nation and world as wimping out. As in the UK, where their PM, Tony Blair, a Labor leader (who is in a similar ideological space to Gore) was even more hawkish than the Bush White House when the attacks happened. Conservatives have less to prove re. defense issues and military readiness etc. Democrats are aware have to demonstrate that they can deliver as well. And btw... I believe that more conflicts the US has gotten into have been under a Democrat president than a Republican.
---------------------------
Vote for Philip!
<strong>I know!. If Gore was president we wouldn't be in this stinking war. Planes would be crashing into buildings and suicide bombers would have a field day every week in our cities, but we wouldn't be in a war!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets not forget that the Transportation secretary is a Democrat. He was the one who portentially saved thousands of lives by called the FFA, not wasting time getting approval of the silly President, to bring down all planes and shut down all airports on September 11.
It's finally been proved that you're blind then.
Every time someone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling. That's poor. If you think you're right, argue her points.
Back to the topic. All that has happened here is that the sentence has been overturned and he will be resentenced. No one is going to be freed over this. The man was found guilty in a court of law and the conviction stands.
As I'm against the death penalty, I'm glad that the sentence was overturned. There are a ton of people out there that have killed law enforcement officials, but they end up rotting in prison for the rest of their lives. That's what I believe is going to happen to this guy. If they sentence him to death again, he'll probably spend another 20 years on death row and die of old age.
<strong>
It's finally been proved that you're blind then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Am I blind or the only one who can see
I do believe what I said. I think people who support these lost causes are supporting some kind of anti-establishment movement. Like the anarchist "protesters" at all the global meetings. It's pro-destruction and pro-kill the pigs. It's pro cop killer. If you support Jamal you are supporting a cop killer.
killer. If you support Jamal you are supporting a cop killer.<hr></blockquote>
All I did, Scott, was to point out the numerous, and well-known irregularities surrounding the original trial. Why is this so unacceptable to you? Are you so trusting of the system that by default, everyone always gets a fair trial, the playing field is always level, racism doesnt exist, police departments are uncorruptible, and so on? Why does pointing out trashy trials make me a "copkiller supporter"? When procedure is compromised to accomodate an easy conviction (or popular opinion), it often backfires. Perhaps you aren't bothered, but that of course is your right.
If he had been found guilty in an untainted trial, then he would have had no grounds to have become a cause celebre.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
If he had been found guilty in an untainted trial, then he would have had no grounds to have become a cause celebre.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha ha ha ha that's funny. All he needs is good writing skills and white guilt to become a "cause celebre"
<strong>
All I did, Scott, was to point out the numerous, and well-known irregularities surrounding the original trial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did more than that. At least three things in your 10 item list have nothing to do with case. One I found to be borderline. The remaining 4 are are varying degrees of value to the case itself.
<strong> All that has happened here is that the sentence has been overturned and he will be resentenced. ..The man was found guilty in a court of law and the conviction stands. </strong><hr></blockquote>
thanks, that's what i wanted to know. now as a cost savings i suggest he, zacharias moussaoui (sp?) and john walker share the same cell
Do us all a favor and Shutup about shit you don't know. Accusing people of supporting Cop killers is stretching things way too far. Reading your blathering rebuttals is an exercise in pain. You are the exact reason why Dumb Americans threads thrive online.
<strong>Well, he killed a cop, and she supports setting him free. What part of that don't you understand? That is supporting a cop killer............................................ .......</strong><hr></blockquote>
It looks to me like she supports fair trials for all people.