|
Post by rocketwolf on Sept 15, 2014 21:12:03 GMT -5
But you would get him off if you did. I have a great record... but I don't take on just anything... but chances are, you're right here... What Im really right about is
That you don't recognize sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 15, 2014 21:15:20 GMT -5
And getting drunk doesn't lead to sexual assault, on many occasions? Why should inebriation be a mitigating factor in one, but not the other? Or is it because this criminal is a Democrat, and another might not be? I think one was charged with DUI... and the one in your scenario was charged with sexual assault... I don;'t think either were charged for their language, were they?... Threatening a police officer is a crime. So, why should she be excused from committing another crime just because she's inebriated?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 15, 2014 21:16:04 GMT -5
I have a great record... but I don't take on just anything... but chances are, you're right here... What I'm really right about is
That you don't recognize sarcasm.
What makes you think I didn't recognize it?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 15, 2014 21:16:56 GMT -5
I think one was charged with DUI... and the one in your scenario was charged with sexual assault... I don;'t think either were charged for their language, were they?... Threatening a police officer is a crime. So, why should she be excused from committing another crime just because she's inebriated? Not necessarily when you're drunk... unless the cop as an arsehole...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 15, 2014 21:18:00 GMT -5
Threatening a police officer is a crime. So, why should she be excused from committing another crime just because she's inebriated? Not necessarily when you're drunk... unless the cop as an arsehole... So, what crimes do you excuse just because the perp is drunk?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 15, 2014 21:21:10 GMT -5
Not necessarily when you're drunk... unless the cop as an arsehole... So, what crimes do you excuse just because the perp is drunk? That's up to the discretion of the officer and the judge... not me...
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Sept 15, 2014 21:31:47 GMT -5
What I'm really right about is
That you don't recognize sarcasm.
What makes you think I didn't recognize it?... lots of things but your posting history is the biggest one.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 15, 2014 21:52:30 GMT -5
What makes you think I didn't recognize it?... lots of things but your posting history is the biggest one. In other words... you don't know...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 15, 2014 22:23:58 GMT -5
So, what crimes do you excuse just because the perp is drunk? That's up to the discretion of the officer and the judge... not me... And in this case, she's getting a pass on threatening a peace officer, and gross abuse of power just because she's a drunk Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 7:20:05 GMT -5
That's up to the discretion of the officer and the judge... not me... And in this case, she's getting a pass on threatening a peace officer, and gross abuse of power just because she's a drunk Democrat. Obviously they (the peace officers) didn't put much stock in her drunken language... (that's common sense)... but I doubt her being a Democrat had anything to do with that... I'm sure you see it different... as expected...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 16, 2014 8:54:31 GMT -5
And in this case, she's getting a pass on threatening a peace officer, and gross abuse of power just because she's a drunk Democrat. Obviously they (the peace officers) didn't put much stock in her drunken language... (that's common sense)... but I doubt her being a Democrat had anything to do with that... I'm sure you see it different... as expected... Either that, or they were "warned" not to bother with it. After all, her office is going after a professor, hired to ferret out corruption in a college program, because a Dem legislator used his influence to get his unqualified son a scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 8:59:38 GMT -5
And in this case, she's getting a pass on threatening a peace officer, and gross abuse of power just because she's a drunk Democrat. Obviously they (the peace officers) didn't put much stock in her drunken language... (that's common sense)... but I doubt her being a Democrat had anything to do with that... I'm sure you see it different... as expected... Yeah, but then she turned around and had Gov. Perry indicted, and now someone at the University of Texas. Both for completely non-existent crimes. So the officers SHOULD have taken her seriously, because this is the sort of thing she does.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 14:14:16 GMT -5
Obviously they (the peace officers) didn't put much stock in her drunken language... (that's common sense)... but I doubt her being a Democrat had anything to do with that... I'm sure you see it different... as expected... Either that, or they were "warned" not to bother with it. After all, her office is going after a professor, hired to ferret out corruption in a college program, because a Dem legislator used his influence to get his unqualified son a scholarship. If they were "warned" as you say and that "warning" influenced their actions... THEY should be terminated... That reminds me of a certain mayor who I represented, when he was involved in a minor traffic accident, the town policy was all drivers are required to take a breathalyzer test... the officer apologized to the mayor and said... "Now blow in this"... and he did... (JB)...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 14:16:12 GMT -5
Obviously they (the peace officers) didn't put much stock in her drunken language... (that's common sense)... but I doubt her being a Democrat had anything to do with that... I'm sure you see it different... as expected... Yeah, but then she turned around and had Gov. Perry indicted, and now someone at the University of Texas. Both for completely non-existent crimes. So the officers SHOULD have taken her seriously, because this is the sort of thing she does. SHE didn't do this... it was an independent prosecutor...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 14:29:39 GMT -5
Yeah, but then she turned around and had Gov. Perry indicted, and now someone at the University of Texas. Both for completely non-existent crimes. So the officers SHOULD have taken her seriously, because this is the sort of thing she does. SHE didn't do this... it was an independent prosecutor... There's nothing independent about prosecutors that work for her and take direction from her. But then you'd know that if you weren't so busy trying to defend a drunken, power abusing DA.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 17:15:17 GMT -5
SHE didn't do this... it was an independent prosecutor... There's nothing independent about prosecutors that work for her and take direction from her. But then you'd know that if you weren't so busy trying to defend a drunken, power abusing DA. Then why ever have an independent prosecutor... or is one appointed by a Republican okay?...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 17:35:40 GMT -5
There's nothing independent about prosecutors that work for her and take direction from her. But then you'd know that if you weren't so busy trying to defend a drunken, power abusing DA. Then why ever have an independent prosecutor... or is one appointed by a Republican okay?... No seriously, what the EFF, are you talking about? Someone who is hired by, and reports to Rosmary Lehmberg isn't going to ever be 'independent.' They're going to be hired for their willingness to trump up charges against her enemies, and they're going to be expected to prosecute nonsense cases against them. An Independent Prosecutor is one who everyone agrees is approaching cases independent of political concerns.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 17:49:11 GMT -5
Then why ever have an independent prosecutor... or is one appointed by a Republican okay?... No seriously, what the EFF, are you talking about? Someone who is hired by, and reports to Rosmary Lehmberg isn't going to ever be 'independent.' They're going to be hired for their willingness to trump up charges against her enemies, and they're going to be expected to prosecute nonsense cases against them. An Independent Prosecutor is one who everyone agrees is approaching cases independent of political concerns. I guess you think Perry should have appointed the independent prosecutor in this case... BTW... who appointed this IP?... And independent prosecutors are not appointed just to "approach cases independent of political concerns"...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 17:56:37 GMT -5
No seriously, what the EFF, are you talking about? Someone who is hired by, and reports to Rosmary Lehmberg isn't going to ever be 'independent.' They're going to be hired for their willingness to trump up charges against her enemies, and they're going to be expected to prosecute nonsense cases against them. An Independent Prosecutor is one who everyone agrees is approaching cases independent of political concerns. I guess you think Perry should have appointed the independent prosecutor in this case... BTW... who appointed this IP?... And independent prosecutors are not appointed just to "approach cases independent of political concerns"... No. I'm suggesting that there shouldn't have been an independent prosecutor at all in this case. Why? Because anyone with an IQ in excess of his shoe size (or not hopelessly blinded by his Democrat politics) can plainly see that THERE IS NO CASE here. Indeed, NO independent prosecutor is even possible in this case. In order to believe there is a case, one has to be such a raging partisan, that they have no hope of being independent.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 18:04:48 GMT -5
I guess you think Perry should have appointed the independent prosecutor in this case... BTW... who appointed this IP?... And independent prosecutors are not appointed just to "approach cases independent of political concerns"... No. I'm suggesting that there shouldn't have been an independent prosecutor at all in this case. Why? Because anyone with an IQ in excess of his shoe size (or not hopelessly blinded by his Democrat politics) can plainly see that THERE IS NO CASE here. Indeed, NO independent prosecutor is even possible in this case. In order to believe there is a case, one has to be such a raging partisan, that they have no hope of being independent. Just so you'll know... the independent prosecutor in this case, Michael McCrum, was appointed by a GOP state judge... Lehmberg didn't appoint him... Lehmberg, recused herself from the case, and the public integrity unit she leads was uninvolved in picking McCrum... McCrum was selected by Judge Bert Richardson, a Republican appointee of President George W. Bush... Richardson and McCrum both worked as prosecutors in San Antonio, according to the Texas Tribune.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 18:22:30 GMT -5
No. I'm suggesting that there shouldn't have been an independent prosecutor at all in this case. Why? Because anyone with an IQ in excess of his shoe size (or not hopelessly blinded by his Democrat politics) can plainly see that THERE IS NO CASE here. Indeed, NO independent prosecutor is even possible in this case. In order to believe there is a case, one has to be such a raging partisan, that they have no hope of being independent. Just so you'll know... the independent prosecutor in this case, Michael McCrum, was appointed by a GOP state judge... Lehmberg didn't appoint him... Lehmberg, recused herself from the case, and the public integrity unit she leads was uninvolved in picking McCrum... McCrum was selected by Judge Bert Richardson, a Republican appointee of President George W. Bush... Richardson and McCrum both worked as prosecutors in San Antonio, according to the Texas Tribune. Now this is just nonsense. The case came up because a Soros-funded, Democrat/trial lawyer hatchet group called "Texans for Public Justice" filed a complaint against Perry because they couldn't stand the fact that someone stood up to their drunk-driving, power abusing, tool in the Travis County DA office. Or do you want to suggest that Texans for Public Justice has no connections at all to Rosemary Lehmberg?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 21:20:12 GMT -5
Just so you'll know... the independent prosecutor in this case, Michael McCrum, was appointed by a GOP state judge... Lehmberg didn't appoint him... Lehmberg, recused herself from the case, and the public integrity unit she leads was uninvolved in picking McCrum... McCrum was selected by Judge Bert Richardson, a Republican appointee of President George W. Bush... Richardson and McCrum both worked as prosecutors in San Antonio, according to the Texas Tribune. Now this is just nonsense. The case came up because a Soros-funded, Democrat/trial lawyer hatchet group called "Texans for Public Justice" filed a complaint against Perry because they couldn't stand the fact that someone stood up to their drunk-driving, power abusing, tool in the Travis County DA office. Or do you want to suggest that Texans for Public Justice has no connections at all to Rosemary Lehmberg? Call Michael McCrum with you foolish complaints... I've heard about as much about them as I care to hear... BTW... TPJ’s original complaint was filed before Perry implemented his veto because the veto is irrelevant... the "threat" of withholding the funds was the issue... and what was presented to the GJ...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 21:23:33 GMT -5
Now this is just nonsense. The case came up because a Soros-funded, Democrat/trial lawyer hatchet group called "Texans for Public Justice" filed a complaint against Perry because they couldn't stand the fact that someone stood up to their drunk-driving, power abusing, tool in the Travis County DA office. Or do you want to suggest that Texans for Public Justice has no connections at all to Rosemary Lehmberg? Call Michael McCrum with you foolish complaints... I've heard about as much about them as I care to hear... ab, this case has been repeatedly shredded by multiple legal experts on both sides. It's a junk case. McCrum has allowed himself to be used, and the case is a black mark on his record.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 21:31:28 GMT -5
We'll see... the important thing... Lehmberg is still on the job... Perry took the $$$ away from the good people of Texas...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 16, 2014 21:36:57 GMT -5
We'll see... the important thing... Lehmberg is still on the job... Perry took the $$$ away from the good people of Texas... Wow... you really are proud of this woman and her cronies aren't you? And the notion that Perry took money away from the good people of Texas... I mean that's just mindblowing. When a governor vetoes a line item on a spending bill, that money isn't 'taken' from anyone. It just continues to sit in the treasury.
|
|