• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder[W:56]

Civil trials don't mean much, those are about dollar amounts, not innocence or guilt.

It's about innocence or guilt before you have to pay or not. And OJ was found guilty by a jury.
 
People too often talk about the right to bear arms without mentioning the responsibilities one has when they do.

And this is why I don't like open carry, or CCW with no course requirements in the legalities nor range qualifications.
 
It's about innocence or guilt before you have to pay or not. And OJ was found guilty by a jury.

No it is not.
Civil trials are not about the legality of actions. Criminal trials are.
 
The problem with people like you is that you think gun use solves problems, they don't, and you know it, but people like yourself are basically sock puppets for the NRA gun lobby.

There are two purposes of/for guns;

1. to intimidate people with them.

2. to kill with.

guns are tools. each problem requires a certain too.

people like you are sock puppets for the criminals and for malignant government.

and some people need killing or wounding and some need intimidating. I want gun banners to be intimidated over the fact that if they go TOO FAR they might end up getting shot
 
guns are tools. each problem requires a certain too.

people like you are sock puppets for the criminals and for malignant government.

and some people need killing or wounding and some need intimidating. I want gun banners to be intimidated over the fact that if they go TOO FAR they might end up getting shot
You're typing like a tool now.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal nonsense.
 
No it is not.
Civil trials are not about the legality of actions. Criminal trials are.

legality = legal. In a contract dispute, the contract is the legal document = legality. If a person defaults on the contract he/she is legally responsible.
 
legality = legal. In a contract dispute, the contract is the legal document = legality. If a person defaults on the contract he/she is legally responsible.
:doh
And again, the legality being spoken about is criminal, I am sure you know that. So you have no point.
Civil trials do not make someone guilty of murder.
 
:doh
And again, the legality being spoken about is criminal, I am sure you know that. So you have no point.
Civil trials do not make someone guilty of murder.

Criminal or not, there is Legality in everything we do. I understand a civil trial is not a criminal trial and no one goes to jail in a civil trial. Sorry but you made the point and stated, there is no Legality in a civil trial, and I will state again there is legality in everything we do. In a contract you are legally bound to perform in accordance with that contract. When a person does not perform in accordance with a contract it surly is the legality of that persons action by not performing in accordance with the contract. Why because they are legally bound to perform.

Your quote:
No it is not.
Civil trials are not about the legality of actions. Criminal trials are.
 
Last edited:
No it is not.
Civil trials are not about the legality of actions. Criminal trials are.

That is flatly false. There are civil trials and juries as well as criminal ones. And people can and do act illegally all the time, in all sorts of ways, without violating criminal laws. When they do, they suffer the consequences, often, but not always, in the form of money damages.
 
Criminal or not, there is Legality in everything we do. I understand a civil trial is not a criminal trial and no one goes to jail in a civil trial. Sorry but you made the point and stated, there is no Legality in a civil trial, and I will state again there is legality in everything we do. In a contract you are legally bound to perform in accordance with that contract. When a person does not perform in accordance with a contract it surly is the legality of that persons action by not performing in accordance with the contract. Why because they are legally bound to perform.

Your quote:
No it is not.
Civil trials are not about the legality of actions. Criminal trials are.
Holy ****. So you are saying that you do not understand that the legality that was being spoken about was criminal?
That is an absurd position given what was being originally replied to.
Civil trials are not about guilt, but responsibility as determined by a preponderance of the evidence.
SO stop with your nonsense.
OJ being found responsible, has nothing to do with actual guilt.
 
That is flatly false. There are civil trials and juries as well as criminal ones. And people can and do act illegally all the time, in all sorts of ways, without violating criminal laws. When they do, they suffer the consequences, often, but not always, in the form of money damages.

Which is no the same a criminal guilt.
 
Holy ****. So you are saying that you do not understand that the legality that was being spoken about was criminal?
That is an absurd position given what was being originally replied to.
Civil trials are not about guilt, but responsibility as determined by a preponderance of the evidence.
SO stop with your nonsense.
OJ being found responsible, has nothing to do with actual guilt.

We're talking "Legality" = law, christ your hammering on criminal, but you said there is NO Legality in a civil trail. Of course there is, legality of a contract. We have laws that dictate the legality. I was always and still am responding to your statement that there is NO Legality in a civil trial and you're dead wrong. You are telling me there is no legality in a contract. :doh

The guilt etc is not at issue, what is at issue is your statement that there is no legality in a civil trial.
 
We're talking "Legality" = law, christ your hammering on criminal, but you said there is NO Legality in a civil trail. Of course there is, legality of a contract. We have laws that dictate the legality. I was always and still am responding to your statement that there is NO Legality in a civil trial and you're dead wrong. You are telling me there is no legality in a contract. :doh

The guilt etc is not at issue, what is at issue is your statement that there is no legality in a civil trial.
Holy ****. Nothing you replied with addresses what was said.
So again.
Holy ****. So you are saying that you do not understand that the legality that was being spoken about was criminal?
That is an absurd position given what was being originally replied to.
Civil trials are not about guilt, but responsibility as determined by a preponderance of the evidence.
SO stop with your nonsense.
OJ being found responsible, has nothing to do with actual guilt.

All you are doing is admitting to the underlined. :doh

Yes I said legality and we were speaking to the criminal aspect of it, which is why the criminal aspect is being hammered. Civil trials have nothing to do with assessing criminal guilt.
You are harping on what was not said. It was clear from the start that what was being said was in comparison to criminal guilt.
Which a civil trial can not assess.


So again. Stop with the nonsense.
 
So again. Stop with the nonsense.

Spare me. You are incapable of objectively discussing anything having to do with Z-man, "Boom box" Dunn, or Theodore "Door knock terminator" Wafer etc.

Tell me, is there any shooting where the killer claime self defense that you reject?
 
Spare me. You are incapable of objectively discussing anything having to do with Z-man, "Boom box" Dunn, or Theodore "Door knock terminator" Wafer etc.
Holy ****. No it is you who has demonstrated that. All you are doing is displaying your irrational angst. :lamo


Tell me, is there any shooting where the killer claime self defense that you reject?
This statement of yours is just another example of you engaging in the irrational behavior you suggest above.

And not that you irrationally bringing up irrelevant topics into this thread is in any way meaningful, but please do tell ...
What was it you do not understand about Wafer being guilty of manslaughter as I said?
 
Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder | ThinkProgress

The Detroit-area homeowner who shot in the head 19-year-old Renisha McBride was found guilty of murder Thursday afternoon. The jury found him guilty on all three charges — second-degree murder, manslaughter, and felony firearm — on its second day of deliberations.

.....Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

During the trial, prosecutors probed Wafer’s inconsistent testimony on whether he intended to fire, and questioned why, if he was shooting in fear for his life, he put his gun down by the front door. They also called upon jurors in closing arguments to consider why he didn’t make a more vigorous effort to call the police before turning to his gun, rather than making himself “judge, jury, and executioner.”


I think this is justice served.

Yep the vast majority of people called these one a long times ago when it first happened.
Very easy case, not sure if there was any NEW stuff during the trial but everything that cam out before hand pointed to a bad shoot, negligence and types of charges definitely being filed and him being found guilty.

There was nothing support self defense in the case.
 
but please do tell ...
What was it you do not understand about Wafer being guilty of manslaughter as I said?

What post number is it in the thread?
 
What post number is it in the thread?
This thread?
What does this thread have to do with it?

My position, as well as those other topics you brought up, are all other threads.
So how about telling everyone how you came to such conclusions by the information in this thread?
Or how about you admit that this thread is irrelevant to what I am on the record saying?
 
Holy ****. Nothing you replied with addresses what was said.
So again.

All you are doing is admitting to the underlined. :doh

Yes I said legality and we were speaking to the criminal aspect of it, which is why the criminal aspect is being hammered. Civil trials have nothing to do with assessing criminal guilt.
You are harping on what was not said. It was clear from the start that what was being said was in comparison to criminal guilt.
Which a civil trial can not assess.


So again. Stop with the nonsense.

We are not talking about guilt, we are talking about Legality and you state there is no Legality in a civil trial and your dead wrong. It's clear "legality" only means to you "guilt"

Definition of Legality, notice it does not differentiate between criminal or civil. If I have a contract to perform services I am bound by law to perform those services.

noun: legality

The quality or state of being in accordance with the law.

Obligations imposed by law.
 
We are not talking about guilt, we are talking about Legality and you state there is no Legality in a civil trial and your dead wrong. It's clear "legality" only means to you "guilt"
Wrong.
Go all the way back to the original quote and what was said. I was clearly talking about criminality.
 
This thread?
What does this thread have to do with it?

OK, show me a post (in this thread, or any thread, or anywhere) where you stated that Wafer was guilty of manslaughter.
 
OK, show me a post (in this thread, or any thread, or anywhere) where you stated that Wafer was guilty of manslaughter.
I don't need to.
You should have looked first before making false claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom