They think it is better to toss out justice and put a few innocent people in jail than the consequences of the protests if they were released.

Do you think this too?

Do you think this too?

I believe this was the rationale used when lynching of blacks were tolerated by the local law enforcers.

Can't lock up half the town -- the other half might show up with pitch forks and shotguns.

Lynchings are just utilitarian methods of saving lives and stopping civil unrest, not criminal acts.

I believe the actual term is 'mob rule'.

I believe this was the rationale used when lynching of blacks were tolerated by the local law enforcers.

Can't lock up half the town -- the other half might show up with pitch forks and shotguns.

Lynchings are just utilitarian methods of saving lives and stopping civil unrest, not criminal acts.

I believe the actual term is 'mob rule'.

Ohhh snap.

Do you think this too?

Nope. I subscribe to the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Even if it started Civil War 2 and thousands died I would still adhere to this ideal.

Nope. I subscribe to the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Even if it started Civil War 2 and thousands died I would still adhere to this ideal.

Wow, a definite stance.  Guess seeing the doc must have worked.

Wow, a definite stance.  Guess seeing the doc must have worked.

i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.

 

i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.

 

*points to nose.

Maybe bored too.

The supreme court just declined to hear Derek Chauvin's appeal on the grounds of not having a fair jury. They didn't give a reason as to why they declined to hear it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/us/derek-chauvin-supreme-court-appeal/index.html

Wow, a definite stance.  Guess seeing the doc must have worked.

I give definite stances all the time, when the evidence warrants them.

Plus my statement was about an ideology, not some position on an incident. I don't change my ideologies to fit the incident, I held this position long before the Floyd incident so whatever doc you are talking about had no bearing.

i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.

 

Says the guy who starts more arguments than anyone here...

I don't troll, it's not my style.
I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion looking at all sides of an issue without rushing to judgement. I possess this amazing ability (sarcasm) to look at things seriously from outside of my own stance and recognize strengths in opposing viewpoints without having to hold them myself.

Says the guy who starts more arguments than anyone here...

I don't troll, it's not my style.
I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion looking at all sides of an issue without rushing to judgement. I possess this amazing ability (sarcasm) to look at things seriously from outside of my own stance and recognize strengths in opposing viewpoints without having to hold them myself.

Keep telling yourself that. Jean.

I give definite stances all the time, when the evidence warrants them.

Plus my statement was about an ideology, not some position on an incident. I don't change my ideologies to fit the incident, I held this position long before the Floyd incident so whatever doc you are talking about had no bearing.

So when asked to post a red flag law that is constitutional (due process), you didn't.  Which means you have no evidence for your statement that there may be one out there.

Nice goal post moving.

Thanks for playing Jean.

So when asked to post a red flag law that is constitutional (due process), you didn't.  Which means you have no evidence for your statement that there may be one out there.

I did, you just didn't agree it had due process. Don't bother debating me if you are going to be dishonest about my posts.
 

I did, you just didn't agree it had due process. Don't bother debating me if you are going to be dishonest about my posts.
 

It's not a debate if you refuse to back up what you're saying. Flapp spelled it out for you and you still refuse. What you posted is WRONG.  (In agent Carter's voice) Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?.  I'm not the dishonest one. I'll give you more chances to post your red flag law that's constitutional. Go ahead.

Thanks for the typical Jeanism reply.  Thanks for playing. Or maybe see an eye doc too if you cannot read what the HRS says. Gotta get glasses or upgrade the RX.

It's not a debate if you refuse to back up what you're saying.

I posted the text for you to read, nothing else I can do if you refuse to read it. Now you are just trolling.
 

I posted the text for you to read, nothing else I can do if you refuse to read it. Now you are just trolling.
 

Posting garbage doesnt show ur right. If thats the case, i can post the instruction manual for Monopoly. Thanks for playing. Maybe i should post it, but idk if someone is near u to read it to u.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Posting garbage doesnt show ur right. If thats the case, i can post the instruction manual for Monopoly. Thanks for playing. Maybe i should post it, but idk if someone is near u to read it to u.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Okay, back to the game references are we?
 

Okay, back to the game references are we?
 

Why not?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Chauvin stabbed.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Chauvin stabbed.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/former-police-officer-derek-chauvin-stabbed-in-federal-prison-sources-say/ar-AA1kuT7j

I predict there will be cheering in the streets over this.