On Aug 20, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by IarnrodOn Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by Pete10016"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by freeisbestPost by Harry Hope_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbestScalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Apparently I'm still too stupid to see it …
That’s the first insight you’ve ever show, nutbag.
since I'm not getting that vibe in this post.
Such is the fate of the clueless kook.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by Iarnrodthen post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
In what way was I ass-whupped?
By my proving your outright LIE and then by your defense of that LIE
only to ACKNOWLEDGE your lie in the very same post. Very rarely do we
get you kooks so worked up in a kooker foam that you blurt out
contradictory things in the same post.
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!
Like I said, I LOVE it!
I was correct.
Nope, not once, not yet.
The person on Death Row was involved in the beating
We know what you said, it’s still in the posts. You said the guy on
Death Row beat the cop, when there is no indication the cop was ever
touched by them. Now you just refer to the “beating” in an attempt to
slide over your lie and move the designation of “beating victim” from
the cop to the homeless man, like we won’t notice your little
sidestep.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
He did shoot the cop.
That is what is in doubt, kook. That’s the point of the appeal, that
the wrong person was convicted.
Try to keep up.
He beat a homeless man.
No direct evidence of that. Being present doesn’t mean he
participated.
So the only thing I
got wrong was that there was an additional victim.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Not NEARLY the only thing!! You got the whole
thing wrong, Bill Bonehead.
You, OTOH,
didn't know anything about the case so you made silly claims, that
he didn't do anything.
BWAHAHAHAAA!! I correctly laid out the case, you stupid shithead. You
got it all wrong. Now as you try to wipe my heel mark off your ass,
you pretend I was wrong! Too funny! Typical Republican tactic.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by IarnrodPost by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
So let me get this straight. There are seven people at the site of
the beating of the homeless man. The convicted is there. He's not
involved, however, and then someone shoots a cop who attempts to
help the homeless man and it's again not the convicted, YET
everyone in the group says that he did it.
So you DON’T know the case and HAVEN’T read the SCOTUS opinions, why
didn’t you SAY so!!
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.
I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
He shot the cop.
Uh, that’s what’s being contested, kook. Do you even KNOW how to read?
This minor difference…
Your claim that the cop was beaten when he was not is a minor
difference? Tell that to the homeless man.
is utterly irrelevant to
anything.
Not at all.
In fact, it's worse since there are two victims.
Of someone. Maybe not Davis. You apparently, like Scalia, say it’s OK
to execute an innocent person as long as he was convicted.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by IarnrodIn fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"
Where does it say? We don't have but a short opinion and dissent
from the SCOTUS court. We don't have the testimony and all the
other evidence here. Provide that.
No. Fuck you. YOU are the moron asswipe who filled in all the blanks
with making up your own evidence. YOU are the one who presumes things
not in evidence.
You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
I'm good enough to be kicking you around.
BWAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!! My heel is permanently implanted in your ass, Bill
Bonehead.
I actually had read the
court's opinions. You obviously still haven't.
WOW, the nerve! You could NOT have read it, you got every fact of the
case WRONG including claiming the cop had been beaten. *I* read it and
corrected you, now you try to pose as the one who read it?? What a
lying republican you are, if I may be redundant for a moment.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by IarnrodNow, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.
What's the "lie" supposed to be?
BWAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Nice try, kook. You need asbestos underwear if
you’re gonna be a pants-on-fire liar.
And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal.
There is no appeal,
What the FUCK do you imagine then was the matter before the court,
moron? Did SCOTUS just cast about the country for random cases to
issue unsolicited opinions on? Gawd, you’re dumb.
he's exhausted all his appeals.
If that were true we wouldn’t be here.
The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
I didn't make anything up, I mixed up the second victim with the
cop. This is irrelevant.
No, this is a lie that betrays your complete ignorance of the facts of
the case. You just make shit up as you go along.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )Post by IarnrodWe'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Please, you didn't know anything about this case,
Correction: I know oh so much more about it than you do and you are so
off-base you thought things that WEREN’T true were part of the case.
You were worse than knowing nothing about it, you thought you knew
things that were false.
you just wanted to let a murderer go
Bullshit, kookface. Keep killers locked up the rest of their lives,
execute them if you have a death penalty… MY desire is that we not
execute innocent people. You and Scalia and Thomas don’t give a shit,
as long as the rules were followed.
, so you ranted
You rant, I kick ass.
and then I post what the court said …
AFTER I already had addressed it. I read the case before YOU did.
and you seek out an irrelevant mistake.
I didn’t have to seek anything out, honey, you dropped it in my lap.
You actually based your argument on the false premise, that if he
hadn’t shot the cop he at least had beat him. That lie completely
changes things. I bet you have no clue why.
The situation for the
convicted is worse because there are two victims of his homicidal
violence.
Wrong. Did the homeless man die? Did Davis hit him? Did Davis shoot
the cop? Seven witnesses have recanted their testimony.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER LIE??? Where the FUCK do you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.
The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
See how you deny he beat anyone and deny that he shot anyone?
That is the claim.
I win. <sips Victory Iced Tea>