Science > Abortion > J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2006 10:51:28 AM |
| Object: |
J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
Christianzais like J Young advocate hatred against gays and pretends
to be shocked when the following happens.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS02/607200336/1004
In a trial in which the only eyewitness kept changing his story, a
Wayne County jury found a 17-year-old Detroiter guilty Wednesday of
attempted murder in what police called a hate crime.
Steven Williams Jr. is to be sentenced Aug. 8 for the Jan. 10 shooting
of Salvagio Vonatti, 31, of Windsor, who remains in a coma.
Police said Vonatti was walking from his car to Gigi's, a Detroit bar
known to cater to gay men, to meet friends when two men approached
him.
The men called Vonatti a derogatory name, police said. Then Williams
pulled out a handgun and fired several shots. Vonatti was struck once
in the head; police found him lying unresponsive on the street.
The other man who'd approached Vonatti, Desmond Caine, at first told
police that he didn't know anything about the shooting. He eventually
took a polygraph test and failed.
Caine didn't appear at the preliminary hearing. He showed up three
days later, however, and named Williams as the shooter. In response,
Williams drew his hand across his chin -- a motion symbolizing a cut
throat -- prompting the judge to tell Williams to keep his hands down.
It was likely that kind of threat caused Caine to change his story
again during the trial and no longer accuse Williams, said Jeffrey
Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a
Detroit-based rights organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people.
"When the only eyewitness changes his story during the trial, that
leaves the jury to figure out which version is true," Montgomery said
Wednesday.
Vonatti was shot once in the face. The bullet entered above his right
eyebrow and exited the left side of the back of his head, according to
relatives.
The trial lasted about 2 1/2 days; the jury deliberated about 2 1/2
hours, Montgomery said.
Williams faces a sentence of up to life in prison. He will be
sentenced by Wayne County Circuit Judge David Allen.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2564 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
-----
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 07:39:34 PM |
|
|
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:a867c2945va3hdje5abt3pcak7o601qj8r@4ax.com...
Christianzais like J Young advocate hatred against gays and pretends
to be shocked when the following happens.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS02/607200336/1004
In a trial in which the only eyewitness kept changing his story, a
Wayne County jury found a 17-year-old Detroiter guilty Wednesday of
attempted murder in what police called a hate crime.
Steven Williams Jr. is to be sentenced Aug. 8 for the Jan. 10 shooting
of Salvagio Vonatti, 31, of Windsor, who remains in a coma.
Police said Vonatti was walking from his car to Gigi's, a Detroit bar
known to cater to gay men, to meet friends when two men approached
him.
The men called Vonatti a derogatory name, police said. Then Williams
pulled out a handgun and fired several shots. Vonatti was struck once
in the head; police found him lying unresponsive on the street.
The other man who'd approached Vonatti, Desmond Caine, at first told
police that he didn't know anything about the shooting. He eventually
took a polygraph test and failed.
Polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Remember that Amnesty International ACLU freak?
Caine didn't appear at the preliminary hearing. He showed up three
days later, however, and named Williams as the shooter.
Very suspicious.
In response, Williams drew his hand across his chin -- a motion
symbolizing a cut
throat
A hand across a chin doesn't mean a cut throat. Don't you know what 'zip it'
means?
-- prompting the judge to tell Williams to keep his hands down.
It was likely that kind of threat
What threat? Likely does not pass the Constitutional standard of proof.
caused Caine to change his story again during the trial and no longer
accuse Williams,
No proof without corroborating testimony.
said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a
Detroit-based rights organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people.
Obviously are not for justice or due process or Constitutional rights.
"When the only eyewitness changes his story during the trial, that
leaves the jury to figure out which version is true," Montgomery said
Wednesday.
Good. And the jury will exhonerate the defendant who is accused without any
corroborrating testimony and since Caine coulda been making it up at first
to avoid prosecution himself to pin it on Williams.
Vonatti was shot once in the face. The bullet entered above his right
eyebrow and exited the left side of the back of his head, according to
relatives.
Cirmcumstantial.
The trial lasted about 2 1/2 days; the jury deliberated about 2 1/2
hours, Montgomery said.
Williams faces a sentence of up to life in prison. He will be
sentenced by Wayne County Circuit Judge David Allen.
Looks like a mistrial to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 07:50:14 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XEUwg.13687$ly.8686@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:a867c2945va3hdje5abt3pcak7o601qj8r@4ax.com...
Christianzais like J Young advocate hatred against gays and pretends
to be shocked when the following happens.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS02/607200336/1004
In a trial in which the only eyewitness kept changing his story, a
Wayne County jury found a 17-year-old Detroiter guilty Wednesday of
attempted murder in what police called a hate crime.
Steven Williams Jr. is to be sentenced Aug. 8 for the Jan. 10 shooting
of Salvagio Vonatti, 31, of Windsor, who remains in a coma.
Police said Vonatti was walking from his car to Gigi's, a Detroit bar
known to cater to gay men, to meet friends when two men approached
him.
The men called Vonatti a derogatory name, police said. Then Williams
pulled out a handgun and fired several shots. Vonatti was struck once
in the head; police found him lying unresponsive on the street.
The other man who'd approached Vonatti, Desmond Caine, at first told
police that he didn't know anything about the shooting. He eventually
took a polygraph test and failed.
Polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Remember that Amnesty International ACLU freak?
Caine didn't appear at the preliminary hearing. He showed up three
days later, however, and named Williams as the shooter.
Very suspicious.
In response, Williams drew his hand across his chin -- a motion
symbolizing a cut
throat
A hand across a chin doesn't mean a cut throat. Don't you know what 'zip
it'
means?
-- prompting the judge to tell Williams to keep his hands down.
It was likely that kind of threat
What threat? Likely does not pass the Constitutional standard of proof.
caused Caine to change his story again during the trial and no longer
accuse Williams,
No proof without corroborating testimony.
said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation,
a
Detroit-based rights organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people.
Obviously are not for justice or due process or Constitutional rights.
"When the only eyewitness changes his story during the trial, that
leaves the jury to figure out which version is true," Montgomery said
Wednesday.
Good. And the jury will exhonerate the defendant who is accused without
any
corroborrating testimony and since Caine coulda been making it up at first
to avoid prosecution himself to pin it on Williams.
Vonatti was shot once in the face. The bullet entered above his right
eyebrow and exited the left side of the back of his head, according to
relatives.
Cirmcumstantial.
The trial lasted about 2 1/2 days; the jury deliberated about 2 1/2
hours, Montgomery said.
Williams faces a sentence of up to life in prison. He will be
sentenced by Wayne County Circuit Judge David Allen.
Looks like a mistrial to me.
I don't understand why he's bitching. This boy *was* found guilty, despite
all the holes in the DA's case. I have to wonder also; how does anyone know
for sure if the victim had made any suggestive passes at the 17 year old
boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 08:11:47 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b6WdndPcy-nmhFnZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XEUwg.13687$ly.8686@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:a867c2945va3hdje5abt3pcak7o601qj8r@4ax.com...
Christianzais like J Young advocate hatred against gays and pretends
to be shocked when the following happens.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS02/607200336/1004
In a trial in which the only eyewitness kept changing his story, a
Wayne County jury found a 17-year-old Detroiter guilty Wednesday of
attempted murder in what police called a hate crime.
Steven Williams Jr. is to be sentenced Aug. 8 for the Jan. 10 shooting
of Salvagio Vonatti, 31, of Windsor, who remains in a coma.
Police said Vonatti was walking from his car to Gigi's, a Detroit bar
known to cater to gay men, to meet friends when two men approached
him.
The men called Vonatti a derogatory name, police said. Then Williams
pulled out a handgun and fired several shots. Vonatti was struck once
in the head; police found him lying unresponsive on the street.
The other man who'd approached Vonatti, Desmond Caine, at first told
police that he didn't know anything about the shooting. He eventually
took a polygraph test and failed.
Polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Remember that Amnesty International ACLU freak?
Caine didn't appear at the preliminary hearing. He showed up three
days later, however, and named Williams as the shooter.
Very suspicious.
In response, Williams drew his hand across his chin -- a motion
symbolizing a cut
throat
A hand across a chin doesn't mean a cut throat. Don't you know what 'zip
it'
means?
-- prompting the judge to tell Williams to keep his hands down.
It was likely that kind of threat
What threat? Likely does not pass the Constitutional standard of proof.
caused Caine to change his story again during the trial and no longer
accuse Williams,
No proof without corroborating testimony.
said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation,
a
Detroit-based rights organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people.
Obviously are not for justice or due process or Constitutional rights.
"When the only eyewitness changes his story during the trial, that
leaves the jury to figure out which version is true," Montgomery said
Wednesday.
Good. And the jury will exhonerate the defendant who is accused without
any
corroborrating testimony and since Caine coulda been making it up at
first
to avoid prosecution himself to pin it on Williams.
Vonatti was shot once in the face. The bullet entered above his right
eyebrow and exited the left side of the back of his head, according to
relatives.
Cirmcumstantial.
The trial lasted about 2 1/2 days; the jury deliberated about 2 1/2
hours, Montgomery said.
Williams faces a sentence of up to life in prison. He will be
sentenced by Wayne County Circuit Judge David Allen.
Looks like a mistrial to me.
I don't understand why he's bitching. This boy *was* found guilty,
By a jury NOT of his peers?
I wouldn't doubt they hand-selected gays to be on the jury.
despite all the holes in the DA's case.
Why the conviction then?
I have to wonder also; how does anyone know
for sure if the victim had made any suggestive passes at the 17 year old
boy.
Who cares?
It did not seem to me that there was anything to convict from what the post
said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 08:37:09 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:87Vwg.13697$ly.8447@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b6WdndPcy-nmhFnZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
I don't understand why he's bitching. This boy *was* found guilty,
By a jury NOT of his peers?
I wouldn't doubt they hand-selected gays to be on the jury.
despite all the holes in the DA's case.
Why the conviction then?
I have to wonder also; how does anyone know
for sure if the victim had made any suggestive passes at the 17 year old
boy.
Who cares?
It did not seem to me that there was anything to convict from what the
post
said.
There wasn't any. This poor boy has been made a sacrificial lamb and that's
why I can't fathom what Yang is crying about. His community got everything
it was asking for. I agree with you, this boy was shanghai-ed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 09:13:49 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:uvGdnXcuTNbmuVnZnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:87Vwg.13697$ly.8447@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b6WdndPcy-nmhFnZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
I don't understand why he's bitching. This boy *was* found guilty,
By a jury NOT of his peers?
I wouldn't doubt they hand-selected gays to be on the jury.
despite all the holes in the DA's case.
Why the conviction then?
I have to wonder also; how does anyone know
for sure if the victim had made any suggestive passes at the 17 year
old
boy.
Who cares?
It did not seem to me that there was anything to convict from what the
post
said.
There wasn't any. This poor boy has been made a sacrificial lamb and
that's
why I can't fathom what Yang is crying about. His community got everything
it was asking for. I agree with you, this boy was shanghai-ed.
Sorry about the who cares part.
How do we know that any of the cops weren't lying?
Did they see it?
If not, their testimony that so and so shot someone is kaput.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
27 Jul 2006 07:41:00 AM |
|
|
After the aliens invaded, flibble Johnny bleemed snorg
<XEUwg.13687$ly.8686@bignews6.bellsouth.net> gnorff Sun, 23 Jul 2006
20:39:34 -0400:
How do the police know what happened? The victim is in a coma and can not
testify. Did the victim bring charges?
In criminal cases, the state presses charges. That's why you hear it put
as "the people verses..."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
14 Aug 2006 01:20:42 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
I do not understand. You are basing your opinion on his guilt based on
a newspaper report? I would have to at least read the trial transcript,
if not be at the trial. I have no idea if they met reasonable doubt or
not since I was not at the trial and do not know ALL the evidence there
is. Therefore I must go with the jury on it; since they were at the
trial.
I may be wrong. Did you study the trial transscripts? If so, I would
like to hear why you think the jury was wrong. If not, then I would
like to know why you think your opinion on his guilt from reading a
newspaper account is correct and the jury's verdict is wrong.
Just like you asked, "How do the police know what happened?", I ask,
"How do you know what happened at the trial?"
tulle
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
14 Aug 2006 02:33:12 PM |
|
|
"tulle" <tulle040657@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155579642.501336.218210@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
I do not understand. You are basing your opinion on his guilt based on
a newspaper report?
I was merely basing it on what I read; and what I feel to be standard
courtroom procedures.
I am not telling you that the person convicted or his cohort are not guilty
or not responsible for the victim's injuries.
I would have to at least read the trial transcript,
if not be at the trial.
Same here.
I have no idea if they met reasonable doubt or
not since I was not at the trial and do not know ALL the evidence there
is. Therefore I must go with the jury on it; since they were at the
trial.
Well, I understand that, but the story left much to be desired, imo.
I may be wrong. Did you study the trial transscripts? If so, I would
like to hear why you think the jury was wrong. If not, then I would
like to know why you think your opinion on his guilt from reading a
newspaper account is correct and the jury's verdict is wrong.
I am only commenting based on what the story told.
Based on that alone, I did not see sufficient evidence or testimony, did
you?
Just like you asked, "How do the police know what happened?", I ask,
"How do you know what happened at the trial?"
True.
I do not understand why they did not consider the possibility that the
'stoolie' coulda been lying to preserve his own freedom.
There isn't anything for me to go on other than what I read.
If the story we read was the court transcript then I would move for a better
trial than what the story described.
Do you think it coulda been a slam-dunk move by the court to get that
federal incarceration income?
Wait. It said two day trial and 2 1/2 hours of deliberations by the jury,
right?
I wonder if they were frustrated that they could not get a confession from
the person who actually did the attacking or corroborrating testimony and
they went with something like, "One of them had to do it, so throw the guy
in jail who the other guy said did it."
Also, you gotta think about the tendency of some people who go ,"Yeah, yeah,
yeah, that's it. He did it." without enough proof.
I really don't know if the guy who was convicted of the crime did it or not.
Do you?
tulle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
16 Aug 2006 08:23:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:33:12 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"tulle" <tulle040657@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155579642.501336.218210@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
Evidence. Witnesses. Crime scene analysis. 911 call transcript.
Interrogations.
None of which, btw, you posess.
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
It is not required that the victim bring charges.
Based on your reasoning, attackers could not be prosecuted as long as
their victims are comatose or deceased.
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
It's in no way suspicious considering that you have absolutely none of
the evidence or transcripts.
I do not understand. You are basing your opinion on his guilt based on
a newspaper report?
I was merely basing it on what I read; and what I feel to be standard
courtroom procedures.
You read a brief sentencing story.
I am not telling you that the person convicted or his cohort are not guilty
or not responsible for the victim's injuries.
I would have to at least read the trial transcript,
if not be at the trial.
Same here.
I have no idea if they met reasonable doubt or
not since I was not at the trial and do not know ALL the evidence there
is. Therefore I must go with the jury on it; since they were at the
trial.
Well, I understand that, but the story left much to be desired, imo.
That's because it was a brief sentencing story.
A brief story is not intended to offer transcripts and evidence.
If you want the transcripts and evidence then request it.
I may be wrong. Did you study the trial transscripts? If so, I would
like to hear why you think the jury was wrong. If not, then I would
like to know why you think your opinion on his guilt from reading a
newspaper account is correct and the jury's verdict is wrong.
I am only commenting based on what the story told.
Based on that alone, I did not see sufficient evidence or testimony, did
you?
Are you really _that_ dense?
The story did not mention that you went to Furman University either.
Does that mean we should conclude you did not attend Furman?
Just like you asked, "How do the police know what happened?", I ask,
"How do you know what happened at the trial?"
True.
I do not understand why they did not consider the possibility that the
'stoolie' coulda been lying to preserve his own freedom.
Prosecutors and detectives _do_ consider such motives, thereby
rejecting your point.
There isn't anything for me to go on other than what I read.
Which was a sentencing report.
You just admitted that you know next to nothing about the case.
If the story we read was the court transcript then I would move for a better
trial than what the story described.
But you didn't read the court transcript, as you previously admitted.
News articles aren't intended to give you every detail about a case
and they don't claim to.
Do you think it coulda been a slam-dunk move by the court to get that
federal incarceration income?
As expected, you resort to the conspiracy theory.
Wait. It said two day trial and 2 1/2 hours of deliberations by the jury,
right? I wonder if they were frustrated that they could not get a confession from
the person who actually did the attacking or corroborrating testimony and
they went with something like, "One of them had to do it, so throw the guy
in jail who the other guy said did it."
Why do you publicly make such a fool of yourself?
Also, you gotta think about the tendency of some people who go ,"Yeah, yeah,
yeah, that's it. He did it." without enough proof.
Wishful thinking. No transcripts, nothing. Just making up ***** as you
go along.
I really don't know if the guy who was convicted of the crime did it or not.
Then you should obtain more information. The case was tried in court
and obviously the courts ruling stands, not yours.
The only reason you are trolling this case is because the victim is
gay. And you hate gays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
17 Aug 2006 09:20:06 AM |
|
|
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:h3h7e2dn7urm7q3tbv8ptle6v6u8ve7en3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:33:12 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"tulle" <tulle040657@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155579642.501336.218210@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
Evidence.
Where?
Witnesses.
Who?
Crime scene analysis. 911 call transcript.
Interrogations.
Got any proof of it?
None of which, btw, you posess.
Where is it then?
Are you telling me you know that all that stuff is there, or are you
speculating, again?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
It is not required that the victim bring charges.
I know.
But where are the witnesses and all these other things you mentioned?
Based on your reasoning, attackers could not be prosecuted as long as
their victims are comatose or deceased.
You think that never happened before? Do you think that without witnesses or
evidence or a confession or such you can prosecute someone?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
It's in no way suspicious considering that you have absolutely none of
the evidence or transcripts.
Are you telling me you have all those things in your possession?
I do not understand. You are basing your opinion on his guilt based on
a newspaper report?
I was merely basing it on what I read; and what I feel to be standard
courtroom procedures.
You read a brief sentencing story.
Yes. So, why are you badgering me about it?
I am not telling you that the person convicted or his cohort are not
guilty
or not responsible for the victim's injuries.
I would have to at least read the trial transcript,
if not be at the trial.
Same here.
I have no idea if they met reasonable doubt or
not since I was not at the trial and do not know ALL the evidence there
is. Therefore I must go with the jury on it; since they were at the
trial.
Well, I understand that, but the story left much to be desired, imo.
That's because it was a brief sentencing story.
A brief story is not intended to offer transcripts and evidence.
If you want the transcripts and evidence then request it.
I may be wrong. Did you study the trial transscripts? If so, I would
like to hear why you think the jury was wrong. If not, then I would
like to know why you think your opinion on his guilt from reading a
newspaper account is correct and the jury's verdict is wrong.
I am only commenting based on what the story told.
Based on that alone, I did not see sufficient evidence or testimony, did
you?
Are you really _that_ dense?
That you won't answer a reasonable question?
The story did not mention that you went to Furman University either.
Does that mean we should conclude you did not attend Furman?
If you go that way we must conclude that there was nothing to convict,
correct?
Just like you asked, "How do the police know what happened?", I ask,
"How do you know what happened at the trial?"
True.
I do not understand why they did not consider the possibility that the
'stoolie' coulda been lying to preserve his own freedom.
Prosecutors and detectives _do_ consider such motives, thereby
rejecting your point.
So, why did the story not show anything to illustrate that point?
There isn't anything for me to go on other than what I read.
Which was a sentencing report.
With gayblade drama in it.
Another one of those: "YEAH, YEAH, HE DID IT, NAIL HIM!" stories.
You just admitted that you know next to nothing about the case.
Are you telling me that based upon extra information you have?
Do you always think that a hand across the chin means a cut throat or do you
more often think of it as a 'zip the lip' sign?
If the story we read was the court transcript then I would move for a
better
trial than what the story described.
But you didn't read the court transcript, as you previously admitted.
Did you?
Why are you siding with incomplete information.
According to Cosntitutional standards i am unable to render a guilty verdict
based upon the information presented in this story.
Why are you badgering me as if I do have all the information and should be
proclaiming someone's guilt or innocence?
Seems to me you are firmly convinced that the trial was conducted without a
flaw.
If the victim regains consciousness he may say who shot him, if he can
remember, as long as the Cain dude doesn't threaten him, assuming the Cain
dude did it, and put the victim in fear for his life to where he will lie
about the other defendant.
News articles aren't intended to give you every detail about a case
and they don't claim to.
So, why are you so convinced as you are?
Do you think it coulda been a slam-dunk move by the court to get that
federal incarceration income?
As expected, you resort to the conspiracy theory.
As usual, I consider every facet that I know about. I do not practice
justice as an exercise in expanding the prison budgets at taxpayer expense.
Wait. It said two day trial and 2 1/2 hours of deliberations by the jury,
right? I wonder if they were frustrated that they could not get a
confession from
the person who actually did the attacking or corroborrating testimony and
they went with something like, "One of them had to do it, so throw the guy
in jail who the other guy said did it."
Why do you publicly make such a fool of yourself?
Me, a fool?
You gotta be kidding.
I read the story.
Also, you gotta think about the tendency of some people who go ,"Yeah,
yeah,
yeah, that's it. He did it." without enough proof.
Wishful thinking.
Nah. I am beign completely objective.
No transcripts, nothing. Just making up ***** as you
go along.
LOL!
You think the second defendant couldn't lie to save himself?
LOL!
Seems to me you are the idiot in this one.
You seem to be relying on fantasies which are not in evidence.
I really don't know if the guy who was convicted of the crime did it or
not.
Then you should obtain more information.
Why? It isn't my job to do so.
The case was tried in court
and obviously the courts ruling stands, not yours.
Obviously, if the victim regains consciousness and testifies that Cain did
it, there will be work to do.
The only reason you are trolling this case is because the victim is
gay.
Error, I hate lies.
And you hate gays.
So?
Who doesn't hate liars and reprobates who seek unequal protections in law in
violation of the Constitutional requirements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
18 Aug 2006 12:47:51 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
How do the police know what happened?
Evidence.
Where?
Witnesses.
Who?
Crime scene analysis. 911 call transcript.
Interrogations.
Got any proof of it?
None of which, btw, you posess.
Where is it then?
Why don't you call up the local PD and find out, moron?
Neither the prosecutor nor the police are obligated to post
evidence just to satisfy your filthy nosiness.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
14 Aug 2006 10:36:06 PM |
|
|
"tulle" <tulle040657@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155579642.501336.218210@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
I do not understand. You are basing your opinion on his guilt based on
a newspaper report? I would have to at least read the trial transcript,
if not be at the trial. I have no idea if they met reasonable doubt or
not since I was not at the trial and do not know ALL the evidence there
is. Therefore I must go with the jury on it; since they were at the
trial.
I may be wrong. Did you study the trial transscripts? If so, I would
like to hear why you think the jury was wrong. If not, then I would
like to know why you think your opinion on his guilt from reading a
newspaper account is correct and the jury's verdict is wrong.
Just like you asked, "How do the police know what happened?", I ask,
"How do you know what happened at the trial?"
tulle
How do you know, "tool"? :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
23 Jul 2006 09:55:04 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
So for all those murder cases where the victim
never brought charges (because they were dead)
we should let the convicts go?
Please. The only thing "Suspicious" here is that
they'd make such a big deal over an inconsistant
eyewitness, when they don't need an eye witness
at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
24 Jul 2006 08:18:46 AM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153709704.572229.286300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
So for all those murder cases where the victim
never brought charges (because they were dead)
we should let the convicts go?
The Police testified under oath.
Did they witness the shooting?
Did one of them lie?
I would not be surprised if one or more of them lied.
Please. The only thing "Suspicious" here is that
they'd make such a big deal over an inconsistant
eyewitness, when they don't need an eye witness
at all.
Inconsistent means he can nto be relied upon, right?
And, that is not enough to convict the other person.
There is no corroborrating testimony from any witness.
Throwing people in jail without proof is denying them due process and
Constitutional standards of proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
24 Jul 2006 11:38:40 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Inconsistent means he can nto be relied upon, right?
And, that is not enough to convict the other person.
You don't need an eye witness to convict someone. That's
the whole point. It's a fasle test.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
24 Jul 2006 10:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:18:46 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153709704.572229.286300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
So for all those murder cases where the victim
never brought charges (because they were dead)
we should let the convicts go?
The Police testified under oath.
Did they witness the shooting?
Did one of them lie?
If you have sufficient evidence or proof of wrongdoing
then you should present that proof to the proper officials.
Meanwhile just like the pedophiles and predators you defend, the
defendant in this case was found guilty and sentenced.
I would not be surprised if one or more of them lied.
If your conspiracy theory has any validity you should present the
evidence.
Why are you blowing smokescreens?
Why are you avoiding the question that was asked of you?
Based on your bellyaching, anytime a victim is dead, comatose or
otherwise incapacitated no arrest or prosecution should occur.
The state apparently prosecuted, Johnny. Is it that difficult for you
to comprehend?
Please. The only thing "Suspicious" here is that
they'd make such a big deal over an inconsistant
eyewitness, when they don't need an eye witness
at all.
Inconsistent means he can nto be relied upon, right?
And, that is not enough to convict the other person.
There is no corroborrating testimony from any witness.
Throwing people in jail without proof is denying them due process and
Constitutional standards of proof.
Did you even read the story? There was no question as to whether the
defendant and the witness were involved in the crime. The question was
which of them shot the victim.
Do you have transcripts, evidence and police reports? Or are you
blindly defending a cold-blooded convicted shooter the same way you
defend pedophile priests and predators convicted of crimes?
Clearly the police and prosecutor determined which of them shot the
victim and the jury found him guilty.
Either post proof of your claims and your conspiracy theories or stop
the whining and crying and snotslinging.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
25 Jul 2006 09:53:21 AM |
|
|
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:i5oac2lkictg0c6pf50n6f91iikmlb6dhg@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:18:46 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153709704.572229.286300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
How do the police know what happened?
The victim is in a coma and can not testify.
Did the victim bring charges?
LOL!
Very suspicious handling of a case, imo.
So for all those murder cases where the victim
never brought charges (because they were dead)
we should let the convicts go?
The Police testified under oath.
Did they witness the shooting?
Did one of them lie?
If you have sufficient evidence or proof of wrongdoing
then you should present that proof to the proper officials.
Meanwhile just like the pedophiles and predators you defend,
What predators and pedophiles?
the
defendant in this case was found guilty and sentenced.
By who?
Was it by the law, according to the Constitutional requirements for proof?
I would not be surprised if one or more of them lied.
If your conspiracy theory has any validity you should present the
evidence.
The case is that the defendant must be PROVEN guilty.
Why are you blowing smokescreens?
The testimony of Caine is unreliable.
Which testimony of his is the truth?
He contradicted himself.
Why are you avoiding the question that was asked of you?
Which question?
Based on your bellyaching, anytime a victim is dead, comatose or
otherwise incapacitated no arrest or prosecution should occur.
I didn't say that.
The state apparently prosecuted, Johnny. Is it that difficult for you
to comprehend?
No. Not with the incarceration for profit machine like it is.
It is very easy to see how they have an agenda to fund their salaries by
incarcerating people.
Please. The only thing "Suspicious" here is that
they'd make such a big deal over an inconsistant
eyewitness, when they don't need an eye witness
at all.
Inconsistent means he can not be relied upon, right?
And, that is not enough to convict the other person.
There is no corroborrating testimony from any witness.
Throwing people in jail without proof is denying them due process and
Constitutional standards of proof.
Did you even read the story?
Yes.
There was no question as to whether the
defendant and the witness were involved in the crime.
The only testimont coulda been trusted was changed.
And, a hand across the chin doesn't mean a cut throat.
The question was
which of them shot the victim.
Do you know for sure which one did it?
LOL!
Do you know who did it?
Do you know?
Or, are you relying on a story?
Do you have transcripts, evidence and police reports?
No. Did the state have all that evidence?
So, if there is fingerprinting and DNA testing and such why wasn't that
cited?
Did they even find a weapon?
Or are you
blindly defending a cold-blooded convicted shooter the same way you
defend pedophile priests and predators convicted of crimes?
Who shot who?
Are you still relying on a story?
Clearly the police and prosecutor determined which of them shot the
victim and the jury found him guilty.
Obviously, they didn't determine it from the story.
One of the defendants contradicted his testimony.
The other did not name anyone as the shooter.
Either post proof of your claims and your conspiracy theories or stop
the whining and crying and snotslinging.
Why are you whining that a gay male was shot?
Why does it bother you so much?
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
25 Jul 2006 07:07:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:53:21 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Why are you whining that a gay male was shot?
Actually, Johnny, you are the one defending the shooters by whining
about some conspiracy theories.
The victim was shot _because_ he is gay, dumbass. The criminals have
no right going around shooting people they dislike whether it's Jews,
Cubans, Asians, heterosexuals, abortion providers or any others.
Why does it bother you so much?
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled, bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
25 Jul 2006 07:51:50 PM |
|
|
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:a76dc25b4mnoilsnq1922q6a7g8n90od12@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:53:21 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Why are you whining that a gay male was shot?
Actually, Johnny, you are the one defending the shooters by whining
about some conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theory?
The victim was shot _because_ he is gay, dumbass.
Now, that is a conspiracy theory.
I know now that criminals like to use that excuse.
Which of the defendants' girlfriends or wives or children did the victim
infect with AIDS?
Where is the WHOLE story?
Gay conspiracy is what I see now.
The criminals have no right going around shooting people they dislike
whether it's Jews,
Cubans, Asians, heterosexuals, abortion providers or any others.
Did you witness the shooting?
Why does it bother you so much?
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete story
to convict.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
I didn't kill the person, and I did not say that the defendants were either
innocent or guilty.
Why are you so in a tizzy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
26 Jul 2006 10:14:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:50 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
By statements like this:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete story
to convict.
That is NOT all you were saying liar. You proposed that the defendants
be paid for killing someone you don't like.
Paying to have someone killed because you don't like them or their
lifestyle is promoting murder.
The story was not incomplete; it reported the sentencing. Have you
read the subject line?
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
Something sure did because you're a hateful bigot that not only
supports murdering people who you dislike, you've defended sexual
predators as well.
Support of murdering people you don't like....
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
You've defended convicted criminals including sexual predators. In
this thread you've promoted paying people to kill those who you
dislike...
You think so highly of the criminals, and yourself, that you proclaim
"mistrials" when in fact you've not seen the court documents from any
of the cases. You promote murder-for-hire when the intended victim is
different than you or otherwise disliked by you.
Where do you obtain your ideals? Your morals? Are you a criminal? A
murderer? Your hands are "clean" as long as you pay someone else to do
the killing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
27 Jul 2006 08:51:16 AM |
|
|
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:jq6gc21dsn67o5pfahbn3ieso9ga1kehsk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:50 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
By statements like this:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
It's a question.
I see your reponse is of an emotional nature.
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete
story
to convict.
That is NOT all you were saying liar.
Funny that you are so emotional.
You proposed that the defendants
be paid for killing someone you don't like.
I asked a question.
Does your deficient mind always draw erroneous concluisions?
Paying to have someone killed because you don't like them or their
lifestyle is promoting murder.
Still hanging on that idea you got in head all by yourself?
The story was not incomplete; it reported the sentencing. Have you
read the subject line?
Yes.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
Something sure did because you're a hateful bigot
That tune is old school.
that not only
supports murdering people who you dislike,
More assumed ignorance on your part.
you've defended sexual
predators as well.
When?
I exposed a lying cop.
Support of murdering people you don't like....
Really?
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
A question.
You've defended convicted criminals including sexual predators.
When?
In this thread you've promoted paying people to kill those who you
dislike...
I didn't.
You think so highly of the criminals, and yourself, that you proclaim
"mistrials" when in fact you've not seen the court documents from any
of the cases.
You are deranged.
You promote murder-for-hire when the intended victim is
different than you or otherwise disliked by you.
Your are suffering from dementia.
Where do you obtain your ideals? Your morals? Are you a criminal? A
murderer? Your hands are "clean" as long as you pay someone else to do
the killing?
How do you get such wild ideas into your head?
I guess you are gay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
12 Aug 2006 02:38:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:51:16 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:jq6gc21dsn67o5pfahbn3ieso9ga1kehsk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:50 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
By statements like this:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
It's a question.
I see your reponse is of an emotional nature.
You're sidestepping the issue again. You proposed, whether as a
question or not, that the defendant be paid "...for helping to rid the
gene pool of a disease?".
It's YOUR "question".
If you're not proposing murder for hire, then what are you trying to
say? Go ahead, spit it out.
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete
story
to convict.
That is NOT all you were saying liar.
Funny that you are so emotional.
It's not all you were saying. Has nothing to do with emotional.
You proposed that the defendants
be paid for killing someone you don't like.
I asked a question.
Does your deficient mind always draw erroneous concluisions?
Why would anyone ask a question like that? Because they are hateful
and bigoted. And you have stated that you are a christian.
Paying to have someone killed because you don't like them or their
lifestyle is promoting murder.
Still hanging on that idea you got in head all by yourself?
You proposed:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
That I somehow fabricated it all is another of your distractions.
You proposed paying people to kill those that you hate.
If you don't want to be known as a hateful christian bigot then don't
post messages indicating so, even if you have to fake it and pretend
to be an honest caring citizen.
The story was not incomplete; it reported the sentencing. Have you
read the subject line?
Yes.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
Something sure did because you're a hateful bigot
That tune is old school.
The reason that tune is oldschool, Johnny, is because you've posted an
archive of rants letting readers have a glimpse into that fucked up
world inside your mind.
that not only
supports murdering people who you dislike,
More assumed ignorance on your part.
you've defended sexual
predators as well.
When?
I exposed a lying cop.
Nothing in the brief story, whatsoever, indicated or showed that a cop
lied during his testimony. It was undercover work.
What happened in reality is that you, Johnny, believe that undercover
detective work should be illegal so your pedo and predator pals can
feel free to use the internet to commit their crimes.
Then there would be no more cases of pedophile clergymen being caught
on the internet by "stings".
Dancing away from the reality of it all noted; you've cried
corruption, conspiracy and entrapment based on brief stories that made
no mention of either.
What if it were a muslim, Johnny? Would you defend him the same? To
the point of lying and making a jackass of yourself? What if it were a
jew or budhist? Or would you then propose the death penalty?
Not that anyone _really_ expects honesty from you Johnny...but at
least try to make sense, stay on the subject and don't fabricate
anymore reasons to throw out cases that have actually been tried.
Support of murdering people you don't like....
Really?
You're not denying that you typed the above proposal...
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
A question.
Rhetorical, sarcastic, arrogant, bigoted and hateful.
You've defended convicted criminals including sexual predators.
When?
In this thread you've promoted paying people to kill those who you
dislike...
I didn't.
Asking it rhetorically, you did.
Are you now backpedaling and saying that you were only joking?
Or do you stand by your proposal?
You think so highly of the criminals, and yourself, that you proclaim
"mistrials" when in fact you've not seen the court documents from any
of the cases.
You are deranged.
How so?
Back to the issue, of reality, you've read short stories and injected
corruption and conspiracy when neither were involved. You defend these
criminals tooth and nail, no matter how much of a fool you make of
yourself.
You promote murder-for-hire when the intended victim is
different than you or otherwise disliked by you.
Your are suffering from dementia.
What about the issue, Johnny? You do remember that, don't you?
Where do you obtain your ideals? Your morals? Are you a criminal? A
murderer? Your hands are "clean" as long as you pay someone else to do
the killing?
How do you get such wild ideas into your head?
I guess you are gay.
That's amazingly priceless, tinkerbelle!
You imply that I have "wild ideas" and that shows, by your logic, that
I must be gay. Do you realize how much of a fool you're showing
yourself to be?
And what a way to answer a question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
12 Aug 2006 03:41:21 PM |
|
|
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:dr7sd2huepid8bgjae4sfr5n25g6n123of@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:51:16 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:jq6gc21dsn67o5pfahbn3ieso9ga1kehsk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:50 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
By statements like this:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
It's a question.
I see your reponse is of an emotional nature.
You're sidestepping the issue again.
*****. You are emotionaly charged and reactionary, and making up crap
there.
You proposed, whether as a
question or not, that the defendant be paid "...for helping to rid the
gene pool of a disease?".
So?
It is a question.
It's YOUR "question".
Yet you did not answer it.
If you're not proposing murder for hire, then what are you trying to
say? Go ahead, spit it out.
LOL!
What makes you think I was 'trying to say something'?
See how you go all batty and think that people are trying to say thjings
when they ask a question?
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete
story
to convict.
That is NOT all you were saying liar.
Funny that you are so emotional.
It's not all you were saying.
Really?
When will you learn the difference between statements and questions?
Has nothing to do with emotional.
You sure?
Did that bring tears to your eyes?
Are you ready to cry another gay-made lie that any 'crime' committed against
any gay is a hate crime and that all gays who are attacked are attacked
because they are gay?
That is the most idiotic ***** criminal excuse angle I know of in this
society.
To assert that a person was attacked merely because they were gay is
complete ***** unless you can PROVE it.
You proposed that the defendants
be paid for killing someone you don't like.
I asked a question.
Does your deficient mind always draw erroneous concluisions?
Why would anyone ask a question like that?
If you would learn to read and stop being so defensive and get to the real
issues maybe you would begin to understand.
Because they are hateful
and bigoted.
There you go off the deep end, again.
And you have stated that you are a christian.
I guess I did somwhere or another.
If you would familiarize yourself with Christianity maybe you would
understand better.
Paying to have someone killed because you don't like them or their
lifestyle is promoting murder.
Still hanging on that idea you got in head all by yourself?
You proposed:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
Idiot.
That is NOT a proposition.
It is a QUESTION.
That I somehow fabricated it all is another of your distractions.
*****.
Didn't your psychiatrist tell you to stop assuming so much?
You proposed paying people to kill those that you hate.
Where?
I see you never answered the question with a sound answer yet.
If you don't want to be known as a hateful christian bigot then don't
post messages indicating so,
I didn't post such a message.
Your foregone and erroneous conclusions are unwarranted.
even if you have to fake it and pretend
to be an honest caring citizen.
Fake what?
That a crime that was committed against someone, not becuase they were gay,
was a hate crime based on someone's sexual orientation?
The story was not incomplete; it reported the sentencing. Have you
read the subject line?
Yes.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
Something sure did because you're a hateful bigot
That tune is old school.
The reason that tune is oldschool, Johnny, is because you've posted an
archive of rants letting readers have a glimpse into that fucked up
world inside your mind.
You are a wacko who assumes that when a gay is attacked it is because they
are gay.
There are pleny more reasons than gay to attack people.
that not only
supports murdering people who you dislike,
More assumed ignorance on your part.
you've defended sexual
predators as well.
When?
I exposed a lying cop.
Nothing in the brief story, whatsoever, indicated or showed that a cop
lied during his testimony. It was undercover work.
What happened in reality is that you, Johnny, believe that undercover
detective work should be illegal so your pedo and predator pals can
feel free to use the internet to commit their crimes.
Nah, idiot.
When you support lying COPS I know you are who is using LIES to foster YOUR
personal agenda.
I do not LIE to the public to attain convictions.
Why are you such a scumbag?
Then there would be no more cases of pedophile clergymen being caught
on the internet by "stings".
Really?
Why do you think that?
Dancing away from the reality of it all noted; you've cried
corruption, conspiracy and entrapment based on brief stories that made
no mention of either.
Error.
What if it were a muslim, Johnny?
What if?
Would you defend him the same?
Would I?
I do not speculate away from the case at hand.
Your speculation is irrelevant.
To the point of lying and making a jackass of yourself? What if it were a
jew or budhist? Or would you then propose the death penalty?
Death penalty? For what?
Your mind sure rambles a lot, huh?
Why can't you keep it on the topic at hand?
Not that anyone _really_ expects honesty from you Johnny...but at
least try to make sense, stay on the subject and don't fabricate
anymore reasons to throw out cases that have actually been tried.
Where is the proof then, if you are so sure this trial was conducted
properly and that the defendant who was incarcerated was proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt?
Support of murdering people you don't like....
Really?
You're not denying that you typed the above proposal...
Proposal?
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
A question.
Rhetorical, sarcastic, arrogant, bigoted and hateful.
All of which you just mentioned is utterly false.
Why can't you asnwer it as it was posed?
Are you afraid to take a stand?
LOL!
Why is your emotional demeanor insuifficient to allow you to answer the
question intelligently?
You've defended convicted criminals including sexual predators.
When?
In this thread you've promoted paying people to kill those who you
dislike...
I didn't.
Asking it rhetorically, you did.
You are really freaking out on it, huh?
LOL!
It was a question.
A question you failed to answer to this point.
Are you now backpedaling and saying that you were only joking?
What if i was joking?
Or do you stand by your proposal?
Proposal?
LOL!
You are weird.
You think so highly of the criminals, and yourself, that you proclaim
"mistrials" when in fact you've not seen the court documents from any
of the cases.
You are deranged.
How so?
You are looney, going off the deep end, making extreme and casual
determinations without any merit to them.
Back to the issue, of reality, you've read short stories and injected
corruption and conspiracy when neither were involved.
Do not expect me to defend your insufficiencies and lies.
You defend these criminals tooth and nail, no matter how much of a fool
you make of
yourself.
I am not defending the crimianl act itself.
That is why I do not like COPS LYING to the PUBLIC!
And, unreliable testimony from someone who was assumed to be a witness and
emotionally charged ***** in the papers isn't sufficient to convict in
the USA.
You promote murder-for-hire when the intended victim is
different than you or otherwise disliked by you.
Your are suffering from dementia.
What about the issue, Johnny? You do remember that, don't you?
This case?
The two defendants and the hospitalized victim?
Where do you obtain your ideals? Your morals? Are you a criminal? A
murderer? Your hands are "clean" as long as you pay someone else to do
the killing?
How do you get such wild ideas into your head?
I guess you are gay.
That's amazingly priceless,
How so?
tinkerbelle!
You?
You imply that I have "wild ideas" and that shows, by your logic, that
I must be gay.
A guess is a must?
Do you realize how much of a fool you're showing
yourself to be?
Not nearly as much of a fool as you.
And what a way to answer a question.
Obviously, you have allowed the gays to deceive you already with their hate
crime ***** excuse.
There is more to life than being gay.
Realize that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bud D. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young Christian Morality: Detroit Man Sentenced for Failed MURDER Attempt Againg Gay Man |
13 Aug 2006 11:11:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:41:21 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:dr7sd2huepid8bgjae4sfr5n25g6n123of@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:51:16 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
news:jq6gc21dsn67o5pfahbn3ieso9ga1kehsk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:50 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bud D. Green" <none@given.net> wrote in message
No one had the right to shoot him, and sleazy folks like you not only
defend the shooters you applaud them.
How do you know?
By statements like this:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
It's a question.
I see your reponse is of an emotional nature.
You're sidestepping the issue again.
*****. You are emotionaly charged and reactionary, and making up crap
there.
You proposed, whether as a
question or not, that the defendant be paid "...for helping to rid the
gene pool of a disease?".
So?
It is a question.
It's YOUR "question".
Yet you did not answer it.
Ok.
I'm opposed to paying people to murder those that you hate.
Anytime you get tired and dizzy from dancing around the issue, you can
elaborate on where you stand in regards to this issue.
If you're not proposing murder for hire, then what are you trying to
say? Go ahead, spit it out.
Still waiting for your reply. Whether you'll be honest or not likely
depends on your medication level, mood and current state of delusion.
LOL!
What makes you think I was 'trying to say something'?
See how you go all batty and think that people are trying to say thjings
when they ask a question?
All I was saying was I did not see enough evidence from the incomplete
story
to convict.
That is NOT all you were saying liar.
Funny that you are so emotional.
It's not all you were saying.
Really?
When will you learn the difference between statements and questions?
I already know the difference. I also know what a rhetorical question
is. Now, are you going to explain your "question" or not, coward?
Has nothing to do with emotional.
You sure?
Did that bring tears to your eyes?
Are you ready to cry another gay-made lie that any 'crime' committed against
any gay is a hate crime and that all gays who are attacked are attacked
because they are gay?
I didn't say it was a crime _because_ the guy was gay, you thick
headed pea brain.
I believe cold blooded murder is a hate crime regardless of whether
the victims fall into any certain "class" of people, including those
that you hate.
Obviously you're too inflexible and stubborn to realize that
committing a crime against someone you hate is still a crime.
Why is it ok when a crime victim is in a class of people that you
hate, Johnny? A simple explanation is requested; changing the subject
and sidestepping does not count as a valid answer.
That is the most idiotic ***** criminal excuse angle I know of in this
society.
To assert that a person was attacked merely because they were gay is
complete ***** unless you can PROVE it.
You proposed that the defendants
be paid for killing someone you don't like.
I asked a question.
Does your deficient mind always draw erroneous concluisions?
Why would anyone ask a question like that?
If you would learn to read and stop being so defensive and get to the real
issues maybe you would begin to understand.
Begin to understand that you're a hateful bigot that thinks committing
crimes against people you hate is ok, yet defends convicted criminals
who happen to be christian by fabricating a defense and mistrial.
That is one bizarre, fucked up world there between your ears.
You do realize that many of the crimes in question have a christian
victim _and_ a christian perpetrator, don't you Johnny?
Where do you stand when that's the case, Judge Judy?
Because they are hateful
and bigoted.
There you go off the deep end, again.
And you have stated that you are a christian.
I guess I did somwhere or another.
If you would familiarize yourself with Christianity maybe you would
understand better.
Translation: "If you were one my psychiatrists you would understand
the workings of my mind better".
Paying to have someone killed because you don't like them or their
lifestyle is promoting murder.
Still hanging on that idea you got in head all by yourself?
You proposed:
"Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping to rid the gene pool of a disease?"
Idiot.
That is NOT a proposition.
It is a QUESTION.
That I somehow fabricated it all is another of your distractions.
*****.
Didn't your psychiatrist tell you to stop assuming so much?
There you go assuming again. Assuming because you are a mental patient
that others must be too?
You proposed paying people to kill those that you hate.
Where?
I see you never answered the question with a sound answer yet.
If you don't want to be known as a hateful christian bigot then don't
post messages indicating so,
I didn't post such a message.
Your foregone and erroneous conclusions are unwarranted.
If you don't want to be known as a hateful christian bigot then don't
post messages indicating so.
even if you have to fake it and pretend
to be an honest caring citizen.
Fake what?
That a crime that was committed against someone, not becuase they were gay,
was a hate crime based on someone's sexual orientation?
Fake and pretend that you are an honest, sane caring good citizen.
Cold blooded murder is hate crime anyway; you're defending crimes
against people you hate.
The story was not incomplete; it reported the sentencing. Have you
read the subject line?
Yes.
Why not let both of the defendants go and pay them a few dollars for
helping
to rid the gene pool of a disease?
Your hatefilled,
You are a liar.
bloodletting religion has turned you into a self
righteous hateful bigot that supports murdering people who you
dislike.
Nah. It didn't.
Something sure did because you're a hateful bigot
That tune is old school.
The reason that tune is oldschool, Johnny, is because you've posted an
archive of rants letting readers have a glimpse into that fucked up
world inside your mind.
You are a wacko who assumes that when a gay is attacked it is because they
are gay.
I didn't assume that. When a court determines such a circumstance then
it is accepted unless proven otherwise. That's the law. You're the one
who fails to accept reality.
Are you delighted when a crime happens to someone you hate?
There are pleny more reasons than gay to attack people.
I'm sure you have many. What about attacking someone because they are
involved in abortions? You're ok with that, aren't you?
But when its a christian priest convicted of child sex crimes you
defend them vigourously, lying and fabricating defenses in your sick
version of justice.
that not only
supports murdering people who you dislike,
More assumed ignorance on your part.
you've defended sexual
predators as well.
When?
I exposed a lying cop.
Nothing in the brief story, whatsoever, indicated or showed that a cop
lied during his testimony. It was undercover work.
What happened in reality is that you, Johnny, believe that undercover
detective work should be illegal so your pedo and predator pals can
feel free to use the internet to commit their crimes.
Nah, idiot.
When you support lying COPS I know you are who is using LIES to foster YOUR
personal agenda.
The facts were all presented before the full court. If you don't like
to accept that christians commit child sex crimes, then that's your
problem to add to the vast list of other problems in that twisted,
tool brain of yours.
Reality is not negotiable, Johnny, so stop trying to spin, spew and
otherwise twist facts to suit your preference. It certainly doesn't
trick or fool anyone other than yourself, and you do know how much a
fool it proves you to be.
I do not LIE to the public to attain convictions.
Why are you such a scumbag?
That's because you don't address the public as a prosecutor. So you
turn to usen | | | | | | | | | | | | |
