Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[TomC]

Ha ha!

You think your biases are a secret?
Oh, please.
Tom

As usual, you missed the point.

Feel free to be clear.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Ha ha!

You think your biases are a secret?
Oh, please.
Tom

As usual, you missed the point.

Feel free to be clear.
Tom

Thanks for the confirmation of my point - I am clear.

 

[Toni]

WaPo won't let me read the article. Why should she have recused herself? Had she a personal relationship with any of the shooters?
The cops?
Tom

I read a lot of articles behind paywalls by going into a private browser mode. Not everyone will allow that but last I checked WaPo did.

However, @Laughingdog posted the part of the article that was relevant in his opinion.
It was detailed, plausible, and could be fact checked. I found it a reasonably good explanation for why Johnson(and probably others like Barnhill and McMichael) should be indicted.

But if I cared enough about one of the thousands of violent deaths in the USA every year to mess with my phone, I'd first go to Drudge Report. Their biases are also extremely clear. I'd see what their version of this story is. If it differs importantly, then I might go looking for more information on the subject. Maybe AlJazeera, or BBC, or some other news sources that don't have typical American biases.
Depends.
Tom

WTF are you moaning about? LD posted an article that YOU complained you could not read yourself. You're calling him biased for doing so.

Your biases and your credibility are definitely on display.

 

[TomC]

However, @Laughingdog posted the part of the article that was relevant in his opinion.
It was detailed, plausible, and could be fact checked. I found it a reasonably good explanation for why Johnson(and probably others like Barnhill and McMichael) should be indicted.

But if I cared enough about one of the thousands of violent deaths in the USA every year to mess with my phone, I'd first go to Drudge Report. Their biases are also extremely clear. I'd see what their version of this story is. If it differs importantly, then I might go looking for more information on the subject. Maybe AlJazeera, or BBC, or some other news sources that don't have typical American biases.
Depends.
Tom

WTF are you moaning about? LD posted an article that YOU complained you could not read yourself. You're calling him biased for doing so.

Your biases and your credibility are definitely on display.

No I'm not.
Why would you even think that. I've read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

One of the racist shooters was an investigator in the prosecutor's office.

He left a message on her phone after their cold blooded murder of an unarmed man.

She instructed the police to not arrest any of the murderers.

She belongs in jail with them. She tried to cover up a murder.

 

[Toni]

However, @Laughingdog posted the part of the article that was relevant in his opinion.
It was detailed, plausible, and could be fact checked. I found it a reasonably good explanation for why Johnson(and probably others like Barnhill and McMichael) should be indicted.

But if I cared enough about one of the thousands of violent deaths in the USA every year to mess with my phone, I'd first go to Drudge Report. Their biases are also extremely clear. I'd see what their version of this story is. If it differs importantly, then I might go looking for more information on the subject. Maybe AlJazeera, or BBC, or some other news sources that don't have typical American biases.
Depends.
Tom

WTF are you moaning about? LD posted an article that YOU complained you could not read yourself. You're calling him biased for doing so.

Your biases and your credibility are definitely on display.

No I'm not.
Why would you even think that. I've read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

Why do you think that is a response?

 

[TomC]

No I'm not.
Why would you even think that. I've read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

Why do you think that is a response?

You said something profoundly untrue.
I just pointed it out.

My opinions about LD go back a good deal further than that one post.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My opinions about LD go back a good deal further than that one post.

You are in the wrong thread.

 

[Toni]

No I'm not.
Why would you even think that. I've read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

Why do you think that is a response?

You said something profoundly untrue.
I just pointed it out.

My opinions about LD go back a good deal further than that one post.
Tom

No, I responded directly to your post.

But I will keep this in mind if ever you ask me for clarification.

 

[TomC]

You said something profoundly untrue.
I just pointed it out.

My opinions about LD go back a good deal further than that one post.
Tom

No, I responded directly to your post.

But I will keep this in mind if ever you ask me for clarification.

What you said was " LD posted an article that YOU complained you could not read yourself. You're calling him biased for doing so."

I have read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You said something profoundly untrue.
I just pointed it out.

My opinions about LD go back a good deal further than that one post.
Tom

No, I responded directly to your post.

But I will keep this in mind if ever you ask me for clarification.

What you said was " LD posted an article that YOU complained you could not read yourself. You're calling him biased for doing so."

I have read lots of posts by LD.
Tom

Correct.

Your reply to my post was ??not responsive??

But that's ok. You don't care for ld because you disagree with his POV. Cool. But at least he is honest about his POV. I find that I have a lot of respect for posters who are honest about their POV, even if I disagree vehemently with them.

 

[Rhea]

The topic is Arbery, and the prosecutor’s indictment in his case.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope all of those law and order types read about this case. Perhaps now they might understand why so many people do not trust the police or the DA in these cases.

 

[Trausti]

I hope all of those law and order types read about this case. Perhaps now they might understand why so many people do not trust the police or the DA in these cases.

Aren't you the guy in the January 6th thread hyping up the charges against the accused? A little consistency here, dude.

 

[TomC]

I hope all of those law and order types read about this case. Perhaps now they might understand why so many people do not trust the police or the DA in these cases.

Aren't you the guy in the January 6th thread hyping up the charges against the accused? A little consistency here, dude.

No, as a matter of fact I don't think he was. Lots of those people earned a charge of treason and insurrection whether they get charged or not.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Kaep was right.

 

[Toni]

I hope all of those law and order types read about this case. Perhaps now they might understand why so many people do not trust the police or the DA in these cases.

Aren't you the guy in the January 6th thread hyping up the charges against the accused? A little consistency here, dude.

Absolute consistency! There is ample evidence that Aubrey committed no crimes--even if he did trespass, the owner of the property did not care and did not wish to pursue any legal consequences to any of the many trespassers in the property. There is ample evidence that those accused of murdering Aubrey did in fact murder him and that initially they were not arrested because one of them was friends with a judge and law enforcement.

There is ample evidence that the insurrectionists illegally broke into the Capitol with the express purpose to disrupt the proceedings there, destroyed and stole property, injured multiple LEOs, erected a scaffold to hang the sitting VP! of the US and threatened to kill multiple members of the US government. The evidence exists BECAUSE THEY VIDEOTAPED IT! and SHARED it all over the media!

 

[TomC]

Kaep was right.

Right about what?

Anything to do with this thread, or is this just another derail that winds up in "Elsewhere"?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I hope all of those law and order types read about this case. Perhaps now they might understand why so many people do not trust the police or the DA in these cases.

Aren't you the guy in the January 6th thread hyping up the charges against the accused? A little consistency here, dude.

I pointed out that there is no doubt the protesters engaged in sedition in the usual sense of the word, but whether they did in a legal sense is open to debate. I also pointed out that there is direct evidence that at least one member of Mr. Trump's campaign was in contact with some the protesting group, and there is direct evidence that the Trump campaign gave at least a couple of million dollars to these groups to get to DC.

So, as usual, you are greatly mistaken.

 

[TomC]

I pointed out that there is no doubt the protesters engaged in sedition in the usual sense of the word, but whether they did in a legal sense is open to debate.

A huge part of what makes this so complex, especially legally, is that the President himself was the top insurrectionist!
That really makes it complicated.
Tom