re: Sentenced to Life for an Accident Miles Away

I'm not reading 21 pages of this shite but I see from the first page it certainly brought out the bootlickers.

quote:

---

I totally understand that you support life without parole for getting arrested after breaking into cars. You have made that abundantly clear.

---

So again, I'm not sure whether you are knowingly being dishonest and lying or simply are unintelligent.

Again, I'm going to have to go with the former since at least one of my explicit posts clearly denying what you have just claimed was addressed directly to you. So if you were intelligent enough to read it, there's really no way you could miss it.

That being the case, how do you think lying about what others have said helps your argument?

Is it just all the years of being a Democrat, like a reflex? When in doubt, just lie?

quote:

---

I can ask if you agree that 2+2=4 a million times. It still doesn't have any relevance to this thread.

---

But just when I think it's dishonesty. you say something like this that makes me think you are just a painfully stupid person.

I have asked you the essence of the question, and your response is to characterize it as a non-sequitur.

quote:

---

The fact that your response to someone disagreeing with you is name-calling says more about you than anyone else.

---

It would, if that's all I was doing. But I've offered plenty of rationale and I'm only name calling in response to your dishonesty. Unless you're telling me that it really is stupidity instead of dishonesty, in which case I would say that it's not name-calling to correctly identify a mentally defective person as such. How it is expressed may lack tact or sensitivity, but calling a clinically retarded person retarded isn't "name-calling." It's just what that person is. It's a statement of fact.

However, the fact that you (IMO) intentionally lie about what I have said DOES say something about either the strength of your argument or your ability to argue it.

People who are winning don't have to lie.

quote:

---

I can absolutely see why the concept is valid and why there are circumstances that warrant them. This just isn’t it. Not by a long shot.

---

I disagree, but as I posted several pages ago, I think your argument is a valid one and could prevail in a jury trial, and I wouldn't consider it invalid if it did.

Same with the opposing argument.

quote:

---

I disagree, but as I posted several pages ago, I think your argument is a valid one and could prevail in a jury trial, and I wouldn't consider it invalid if it did. Same with the opposing argument.

---

I truly hope there wouldnt even be one person on a jury to go along with this much less twelve.

quote:

---

Again, I'm going to have to go with the former since at least one of my explicit posts clearly denying what you have just claimed was addressed directly to you. So if you were intelligent enough to read it, there's really no way you could miss it.

---

Your position is that the person should have known that his friend was going to evade arrest and kill cyclists while he was in police custody? Since your claim is that I'm stupid, explain that part with a simple yes or no.

I'm assuming most of us have done illegal drugs at some point in our lives. If something would have gone sideways, any one us could be in prison for the rest of our lives and this board would be cheering on the sentencing. It's crazy.

quote:

---

I'm assuming most of us have done illegal drugs at some point in our lives.

---

I have not. I’m very risk averse.

quote:

---

to keep it on topic, my point is that even though the guy in the article was committing an actual crime against another person, the statute can be applied without an intended victim. It's such an overreach.

---

And let’s be real most of the time these overreaches are done so the DA doesn’t have to actually prove their case I the courtroom. Slap you with “life without parole” possibility and you’ll plead guilty for slightly lesser charges.

Intended victim

Interesting