marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Which bus driver? The one who testified or another one? :uhoh:
Does it matter? :lol:
Which bus driver? The one who testified or another one? :uhoh:
Which bus driver? The one who testified or another one? :uhoh:
Aaaa - the last ones. The others were just tiny little technical issues AND Scouser was convicted by what was seen and felt.. Don't confuse us with FACTS.CA1: "It is NOT a bus!"
CA2: "This is a picture of the BUS"
The "12 INCH Gun"? The black "clip" with a "silver stripe down the middle"? That he could "see him glaring at me" (Thru Scouser's sunglasses)?
Which set of the Commonwealth's lies are we supposed to go by????
The real question, and one that ought to scare the h#ll out of any of us is:"Why didn't the jury see the BS for what it was??"Aaaa - the last ones. The others were just tiny little technical issues AND Scouser was convicted by what was seen and felt.. Don't confuse us with FACTS.
Why does their testimony smell so funny?
The real question, and one that ought to scare the h#ll out of any of us is:"Why didn't the jury see the BS for what it was??"
A related question is:"Upon what basis would a higher court overturn the conviction?"
Fixed it for you, then the answer becomes "yes", but the appeal will be based on procedural errors that allowed that to happen. These will not be discussed at this time.I finally figured out what was really bugging me about this.
As far as I know, one guy said "That guy threatened me." The other guy [strike] s [/strike] said "No he didn't."
And they convicted him on that. Is that accurate?
Fixed it for you, then the answer becomes "yes", but the appeal will be based on procedural errors that allowed that to happen. These will not be discussed at this time.
Precisely. That is part of the reason people are so upset. The public rape of Scouser is obviously the catalyst.Amazing. You see what I'm saying, right?
I can walk up to a cop and say "My neighbor threatened me yesterday." Guilty.
Precisely. That is part of the reason people are so upset. The public rape of Scouser is obviously the catalyst.
The Court of Appeals is the next step.
Actually 'specific intent' provisions should make their job easier.See? See what happens when cretins enact penal statutes that lack specific intent.
Even worse, C.A.'s that complain that 'specific intent' provisions make their job 'too difficult' -- oh boo hoo. Retire, then.
Actually 'specific intent' provisions should make their job easier.
Would the CA prosecute someone as a rapist if the were see publicly urinating (brandishing private parts)? Having the equipment does not constitute intent.
Intentionally violate the 'specific intent' of the law and the CA gets an easy conviction. If they don't have solid proof/evidence of such 'specific intent' then do not prosecute. That is a win-win for situation.
I have to wonder if "specific intent" provisions would trump judge and jury hoplophobia and anti-2A sentiments at the lower court levels.
I expect that it would make a reversal on appeal much easier, though.
I know of at least 1 case where a magistrate didn't buy the arresting officer's complaint. (No, I wasn't the perp.) Cop was told he didn't have enough evidence (stuff he found during a search of the perp's car) to support the charge.What actually surprises me the most about this case is the fact that charges were filed solely based upon the word of a civilian. I thought that it was the conventional wisdom here that as brandishing is a misdemeanor that even if the police were called they couldn't arrest if they had not personally witnessed the "act". I do see that an officer became actively involved and took the witness statement to a magistrate. Do magistrates in VA simply rubberstamp each misdemeanor case brought to them by a LEO? Do they do the same for civilians?
What actually surprises me the most about this case is the fact that charges were filed solely based upon the word of a civilian. I thought that it was the conventional wisdom here that as brandishing is a misdemeanor that even if the police were called they couldn't arrest if they had not personally witnessed the "act". I do see that an officer became actively involved and took the witness statement to a magistrate. Do magistrates in VA simply rubberstamp each misdemeanor case brought to them by a LEO? Do they do the same for civilians?
Do magistrates in VA simply rubberstamp each misdemeanor case brought to them by a LEO? Do they do the same for civilians?
Whaaat? Where does he park his car?I once arrested a guy for auto tampering (like vandalism) and DIP. I watched him walk up to his girlfriend's mom's car and physically rip the passenger mirror off the car in a fit of rage.
The magistrate refused to issue the warrant. He told me that "the police don't arrest people for damaging other people's property".
Whaaat? Where does he park his car?