DA defends decision to drop burglary charges

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:55:02 GMT, James Browns Soul
wrote:

0:- wrote:
James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial
rules you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only
charge and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules
of the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which
are pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't
come to logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT
THAT THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS
****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he
was in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone
enters, and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command,
you can shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And
it's not hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.

Above are my comments. Kane

Below, someone's response. In a sock, of course.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he
was a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys
usually end up shooting themselves or another family member while
waiting for the 'bad' men.

I'm going to invite you to provide proof of your claim and at the same
time introduce you to my friends, well some of them, at talk.politics.guns


Can't you folks on the gun group do something with this deluded state
agent? You know him as Kane/d'geezer/Donald L. Fisher.

He spams his neighbors children to usenet so his boss can cash in on
adoption bonuses - he stalks, harasses, and falsely accuses innocent
parents already abused by an out of control child welfare agency.

He constantly rants that parents who spank their children are 'child
abusing thugs' - rants for laws to imprison spanking parents and then
has the nerve to post quotes from the founding fathers and the
constitution in his sig.

We're having a ball over on ASCPS watching this perverted koo-koo flop
like a fish. I knew the gun comment would send him over the edge, but I
didn't think he'd involve you folks on the gun group.

Ten Hut - at ease - carry on men.


I guess that you don't want your posts to end up in an
appropriate forum where people with a vast knowledge base can refute
your assertions and show just how much you actually don't know.

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:55:02 GMT, James Browns Soul
wrote:

0:- wrote:
James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.
My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial
rules you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only
charge and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules
of the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which
are pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't
come to logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT
THAT THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS
****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he
was in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone
enters, and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command,
you can shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And
it's not hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.
Above are my comments. Kane

Below, someone's response. In a sock, of course.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he
was a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys
usually end up shooting themselves or another family member while
waiting for the 'bad' men.
I'm going to invite you to provide proof of your claim and at the same
time introduce you to my friends, well some of them, at talk.politics.guns

Can't you folks on the gun group do something with this deluded state
agent? You know him as Kane/d'geezer/Donald L. Fisher.

He spams his neighbors children to usenet so his boss can cash in on
adoption bonuses - he stalks, harasses, and falsely accuses innocent
parents already abused by an out of control child welfare agency.

He constantly rants that parents who spank their children are 'child
abusing thugs' - rants for laws to imprison spanking parents and then
has the nerve to post quotes from the founding fathers and the
constitution in his sig.

We're having a ball over on ASCPS watching this perverted koo-koo flop
like a fish. I knew the gun comment would send him over the edge, but I
didn't think he'd involve you folks on the gun group.

Ten Hut - at ease - carry on men.


I guess that you don't want your posts to end up in an
appropriate forum where people with a vast knowledge base can refute
your assertions and show just how much you actually don't know.

Yeah - sumptin like that Einstein.

In talk.politics.guns Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Ili'ili keiki "0:-" , men ne cunnon secgan
to
soðe:

can I assume you are saying
that people are more likely, if they have a gun or guns in their
home to shot a family member than an intruder or themselves?

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to shoot a family member
or to commit suicide than shoot an intruder.

You and your gunhugger buddies can deny it all you wish but that is
an established fact.

The established facts here a (a)that statement is bogus, and (b)
you're too ****ing stupid to know what a grocery store is.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial
rules you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can
only charge and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules
of the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which
are pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't
come to logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT
THAT THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE
THIS ****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he
was in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone
enters, and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command,
you can shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving.
And it's not hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your
life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have
not been charged with anything.

Above are my comments. Kane

Below, someone's response. In a sock, of course.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he
was a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys
usually end up shooting themselves or another family member while
waiting for the 'bad' men.

I'm going to invite you to provide proof of your claim and at the same
time introduce you to my friends, well some of them, at
talk.politics.guns


Can't you folks on the gun group do something with this deluded state
agent? You know him as Kane/d'geezer/Donald L. Fisher.

He spams his neighbors children to usenet so his boss can cash in on
adoption bonuses

Not facts to support. A lie, in other words.

- he stalks, harasses, and falsely accuses innocent
parents already abused by an out of control child welfare agency.

A flat out lie. In fact, the opposite is true. I refuse to allow the
scum that infest ascps to stalk, harass and falsely accuse parents that
are fighting CPS and those that have fought and won.

He constantly rants that parents who spank their children are 'child
abusing thugs'

Lie.

- rants for laws to imprison spanking parents

Another lie.

Prove your claims.

and then
has the nerve to post quotes from the founding fathers and the
constitution in his sig.

You and your cronies are the abusers of the Constitution here, lame-o.


We're having a ball over on ASCPS watching this perverted koo-koo flop
like a fish. I knew the gun comment would send him over the edge, but I
didn't think he'd involve you folks on the gun group.

You hoped it wouldn't. Because you and your cronies would be instantly
exposed for the lying thugs you actually are.


Ten Hut - at ease - carry on men.

Yeah, that'll convince them of your credibility.

R R R R R ....

0:-





There's a number of them that are excellent researchers and maintain
repositories of actual data on such things, as I am and do myself.

But you aren't likely to believe me...so, can I assume you are saying
that people are more likely, if they have a gun or guns in their home
to shot a family member than an intruder or themselves?

If I am framing this incorrectly, I hope you'll correct me, and
introduce yourself to talk.politics.guns.

Feel free on your way in, to stop, do a little research, and bring
your evidence for your claims with you.

Best wishes, Kane