Posted on 05/12/2023 6:48:24 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
There is much talk here about “there was no evidence.”
“no evidence of election fraud, despite a look at all the “fraud that was committed.”
Perhaps I missed it...WHAT WAS THE “EVIDENCE” THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MET, TALKED WITH, ARRANGED A MEETING IN THE FITTING ROOM, AND FINALLY ...ACTUALLY MET HER IN THAT ROOM????
Did I miss something?
Good points. Not sure the samaritan part is about keeping a person breathing or their heart beating, rather than stopping them from wildly injuring the other passengers like this derelict.
People all over the country are said to have “just stood there making cell phone videos” but “not trying to help the victim at all.”
With the pseudo justice system THEY would get sued or go to prison for making physical contact with the violent offender, just as the police are in trouble for getting involved. “Did they see the gun? Was it loaded? Could they have held him with a martial arts wrist maneuver and talked him down to de-escalate?”
the defense will use the death threats as defense. The prosecution will likely mention the absence of a weapon and the argument that the marine could have let go of the victim’s neck earlier.
Thank you for sharing that link; I was looking for it.
The French gave our soldiers the Chevalier of the Legion of Honour. Bragg gave the Marine a manslaughter charge.
-PJ
E.V. Walter’s (1969) classic analysis of 19th-century political terrorism is still one of the best in terms of explaining the objectives of states that use terrorism. Walter argued that state elites manipulate fear as a means of controlling society and maintaining power. Terror is used to engineer compliant behavior not only among victims, but also among target populations.
Walter’s differentiation between victims and larger targets is key. While victims suffer direct consequences, the targets — larger sectors of society — understand the message.
The underlying goal of state terrorism, Walter suggests, is to eliminate potential power contenders and to impose silence and political paralysis, thereby consolidating existing power relations. The proximate end is to instill terror in society and the ultimate end is control.
From a publication of CIA’s as regards to Operation Condor.
Whoa! $780,000! Didn’t check how long it’s been up. Wish they’d tell us how many NYC residents donated.
Doesn’t matter. The africans want their pound of white flesh.
I did not know this.
Bookmark.
It’s been up just three or four days I believe.
Exactly. It’s all revenge on whitey.
Bragg and his ilk want whites dead or in concentration camps. Unfortunately, the majority of blacks support his efforts.
Alvin requests your presence for jury duty.....
The defense could also point out the absence of a weapon, no?
Many whites and the invaders from the south feel the same way.
Maybe they don’t hate whitey as much, they mostly just need his house, boat and pick-up.
I’m going to guess Bragg will drop charges before trial, as he did with the bodega owner who killed a robber.
Neely never laid a hand on anyone on that train.
He made verbal threats. He was causing a scene. He was in an extremely excitable mood.
Sure Neely has a history of violence but Penny didn’t know about that.
All Penny saw and heard were verbal threats.
If Penny only grabbed Neely by the arm, that would be an assault. Penny wasn’t defending anyone from harm. Penny was restraining a man causing a disturbance.
If you are driving to Church and accidentally hit a bicycle rider because you failed to see them, and the died as a result……..you committed Manslaughter.
You accidentally killed someone.
I have always been against chokeholds. Chokeholds have become popular from WWF wrestling or WEF wrestling. Fake wrestling shows.
Chokeholds are dangerous and even Detroit Police won’t use them.
One can never gauge how much of a chokehold is too much, and then does the person that was choked out need CPR?
Bragg should have had a Grand Jury decide on what if any charges should be made.
Verbal threats, no matter how ugly are not enough for the use of deadly force.
“Making death treats is legally distinguishable from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. If merely yelling “I’m going to kill you” is enough of a threat to justify the use of deadly force, then then there should be hundreds of thousands of dead parents every day (i.e., “if you do that again Johnny I’m going to kill you”).”
I hope you’re intelligent enough to differentiate between a maniac on a subway and a parent venting.
Apparently, you and me are a small minority on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.