Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

[Stretch]

Congratulations to User on a fine defense, I wish I had the endless funds to travel and witness this from the west coast. Congratulations, Skidmark on truly being free again. I hope this burden is lifted from you!

 

[Grapeshot]

Verdict - NOT guilty.

After the case on the street, when asked if he had any statement to make. the CA issued as terse "No comment!" :lol:

 

[wrightme]

Verdict - NOT guilty.

After the case on the street, when asked if he had any statement to make. the CA issued as terse "No comment!" :lol:

Too bad that wasn't what he issued when presented with the initial reports, eh.

 

[Ridgerunner316]

That's what I have been waiting to hear. I have followed this from the beginning. I was waiting for someone to say it. That fact should not be overlooked.

My not so humble opinion:

Skid knowing his rights, dared to exercise them in front of self-important authorities that didn't like what they may have perceived as a redneck standing up to their authority. I smelled a rat from the very beginning.
I might alienate some of you, but I'm not sorry. I have seen this type of shenanigan played time and time again. This was racist to it's core.

Q: What kind of sloppy police send in a swat team to the man's home hours after the fact?
A: An incompetent, racist black police that didn't care for Skid's whiteness along with his antics standing up to their "authority."

What a joke. This whole thing is a joke. My hat's off to all of you for being highly visible and supporting Skid.

You, sir, have hit upon the answer. Look at the commonality: Prosecutor black, Vick black. Same CA, black officer. Reluctance to prosecute in the first case, overzealous (from what I have read here) to prosecute on the 2nd. The difference? Mr. Skidmark, from the photos I have seen, appears to be Caucasian. I must concur with your conclusion re: the "officer" being racist, but would also include the prosecutor, as well.....

 

[3fgburner]

Just got caught up on this thread. Congrats to both Skid and User! Congrats, also, to the folks on the board who supported them. Should I ever run afoul of a Cop, up here in NOVA, I know whom I'd want on my side.

 

[WCrawford]

Congrats from TN. Glad you won.

 

[VW_Factor]

Congrats good Sirs! Good stuff here!

I have no idea if the Commonwealth's witnesses were liars or just not telling the truth. There is a distinction, but the Commonwelath Attorney was having a difficult time understanding that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

A lie is a lie, there is no distinction.

 

[Greyh Seer]

Congrats.

I hope a civil suite is forthcomming to cover the costs of his trial. Either way, good win!

 

[CovenantTF]

Great news. It made my day. Now I'm waiting to see just how deep you can shove "not guilty" down someones throat. Hopefully multiple "someones". Woohoo!

 

[Baked on Grease]

Congrats good Sirs! Good stuff here!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

A lie is a lie, there is no distinction.

The distinction is between saying something knowingly not true, and refusing to say the truth I.e skirting the truth... Maybe... I wasn't there so I have no inside info...

Sent using tapatalk

 

[Shovelhead]

Congrats to all involved.

Lies and BS will only get someone so far, glad to hear there was a FAIR judge in the big chair.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

The distinction is between saying something knowingly not true, and refusing to say the truth I.e skirting the truth... Maybe... I wasn't there so I have no inside info...

Sent using tapatalk

There is also the case where I say something that I believe to be true today and next week my belief is proved wrong. Technically a lie but I wasn't lying.

The best example of that would be Colin Powell saying there were WMD's in Iraq because he was told they were there and Saddam bragged he had them. Many years later, we found out intelligence was wrong and Saddam was a big liar. While Powell was technically lying, he was mislead.

 

[peter nap]

Verdict - NOT guilty.

After the case on the street, when asked if he had any statement to make. the CA issued as terse "No comment!" :lol:

Oh...he made a Dandy Statement yesterday!:lol:

 

[VW_Factor]

The distinction is between saying something knowingly not true, and refusing to say the truth I.e skirting the truth... Maybe... I wasn't there so I have no inside info...

Sent using tapatalk

Lying by omission is also lying.

Edit : Refusing to say anything about something true, is considered lying by omission.

There is no "riding the line" with telling the truth.

You might skim the wiki. >.>

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

"taxing the piss out of the rich . . . . ?"

What's with the "hate the rich"/class warfare language on your posts? I hope to be rich one day. This philosophy doesn't seem to go with lovers of the constitution.

 

[VW_Factor]

"taxing the piss out of the rich . . . . ?"

What's with the "hate the rich"/class warfare language on your posts? I hope to be rich one day. This philosophy doesn't seem to go with lovers of the constitution.

Forum signature is a quote from a member here, copy/pasted. I don't know what is with it, perhaps you could ask her.

 

[t33j]

Forum signature is a quote from a member here, copy/pasted. I don't know what is with it, perhaps you could ask her.

I have always found it hard to have anything but contempt for those who hate money, or people with a lot of it.

http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/moneyspeech.html



Congrats Skid, and thank you. I'm looking forward to peternap's finished product.

 

[user]

re: civil liability issues

My guess on this would be that if the judge dismissed the case at any point before the trial it would add weight to the argument that the prosecutor didn't have a case. Since the judge ruled a couple times against dismissal and for the prosecutor it adds weight that the event in question deems examination and a judgement. IANAL

If the court had dismissed the charge on the ground that Skidmark's right to due process had been violated, it would make it easier to do a case under 42 U.S.C. 1983, "violation of civil rights under color of state authority". As it is, there's still a case there, but it will not be as easily made. Furthermore, an action under state law for malicious prosecution requires proof that there was no probable cause to arrest. That's a different standard than the guilty/not guilty question, because all the defendant in the civil case would have to show was that he had a reasonably held, good faith belief, that a crime had been committed and that the person charged was the person responsible for the crime, and he only needs to prove that by "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not). Very often, the mere fact that a magistrate issued a summons or warrant is sufficient to deal with that issue. The discussion of rascism on the part of some of the individuals involved is related to the question of malice in the malicious prosecution equation. No question in my mind, there was actual malice there.

 

[MKEgal]

Poindexter... tried to paint Skid as very scary.

Well, he sees you when you're sleeping,
& knows when you're awake,
he knows if you've been bad or good...

Having a stalker can be scary. :lol:

 

[va_tazdad]

To Dan the Man!

In my earlier congrats to Skid for the win, I failed to mention your outstanding legal maneuvering.

Thank you for a job well done, as it will benefit all of us.

I had intended to go to the dinner, but my wife found me asleep sitting up in bed after working all night and listening to Poindexrer spew all day. Thankfully Sidestreet was driving.

By the time I woke up it was already time to get ready to go back to work last night. Wish I would have been there to raise a glass to you and Skid.

Again, thanks for a job well done by you and Skidmark!