Killer set free

[Taichiliberal]

Oh, and touchy: since the sentence was merely commuted, the man is still legally defined as a killer, no matter how you feel about it. Too bad, you lose (yet again.)

Newsflash for ya, Goody....he's "LEGALLY" defined as being convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter. Court rulings just don't give a generic "killer" ruling...which is why DEGREES of murder have been established after a century or two of legal precedent.

I never said that White didn't kill the little punk.....I just pointed out that Mojo's subject title, taken as is, connotates that his action was akin to some wanton, deliberate act, which wasn't the case.

Also, you'll note that to date Mojo cannot meet my challenge to display any news headline (maybe I should have stipulated US news) or coverage that declares the actions of our troops as "killers". Instead, Mojo shotguns a slew of INDIVIDUAL cases of crimes (alleged and otherwise) commited by soldiers. Remember, by Mojo's definition, ANY SOLDIER THAT KILLS FOR ANY REASON IS A KILLER.....so all Mojo has to do is show me a headline in a US paper that refers to US troop actions in Iraq or Afghanistan in general, as "killers".

Yet again, you have no Good Luck trying to fault me on a particular issue.....but we do fundamentally agree that White got a raw deal.

 

[NOVA]

Newsflash for ya, Goody....he's "LEGALLY" defined as being convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter. Court rulings just don't give a generic "killer" ruling...which is why DEGREES of murder have been established after a century or two of legal precedent.

I never said that White didn't kill the little punk.....I just pointed out that Mojo's subject title, taken as is, connotates that his action was akin to some wanton, deliberate act, which wasn't the case.

Also, you'll note that to date Mojo cannot meet my challenge to display any news headline (maybe I should have stipulated US news) or coverage that declares the actions of our troops as "killers". Instead, Mojo shotguns a slew of INDIVIDUAL cases of crimes (alleged and otherwise) commited by soldiers. Remember, by Mojo's definition, ANY SOLDIER THAT KILLS FOR ANY REASON IS A KILLER.....so all Mojo has to do is show me a headline in a US paper that refers to US troop actions in Iraq or Afghanistan in general, as "killers".

Yet again, you have no Good Luck trying to fault me on a particular issue.....but we do fundamentally agree that White got a raw deal.

Too funny.....the clown needs a headline to make it official....

:lmao: I don't usually laugh at retarded posters, but I'll make an exception for Clarabell......

PS. Don't forget the chronology of the posts to make it all clear....hahahah

 

[Good Luck]

Hint: the term "killer" is a generic term, usually (but not always) denoting someone who was CONVICTED of illegally killing another person. People have referred to hunters as "killers", but that is an uncommon usage of the term. Soldiers have also been referred to as killers (especially during Vietnam). But, again, it is not a common usage. However, using the term in reference to someone convicted of manslaughter IS common usage.

White, in what is IMO a travesty of justice, was convicted of illegally killing another human. In a further travesty of justice, he was also convicted of illegally owning a firearm. Mojo's headline is accurate, as are those of every news article he posted using the same term for the same case. You are incorrect (big surprise there) insisting that the term "killer", as used, implies intent. That is your own prejudiced interpretation. (ie: you think White got a raw deal, so you do not like him being referred to as a killer.)

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Newsflash for ya, Goody....he's "LEGALLY" defined as being convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter. Court rulings just don't give a generic "killer" ruling...which is why DEGREES of murder have been established after a century or two of legal precedent.

I never said that White didn't kill the little punk.....I just pointed out that Mojo's subject title, taken as is, connotates that his action was akin to some wanton, deliberate act, which wasn't the case.

Also, you'll note that to date Mojo cannot meet my challenge to display any news headline (maybe I should have stipulated US news) or coverage that declares the actions of our troops as "killers". Instead, Mojo shotguns a slew of INDIVIDUAL cases of crimes (alleged and otherwise) commited by soldiers. Remember, by Mojo's definition, ANY SOLDIER THAT KILLS FOR ANY REASON IS A KILLER.....so all Mojo has to do is show me a headline in a US paper that refers to US troop actions in Iraq or Afghanistan in general, as "killers".

Yet again, you have no Good Luck trying to fault me on a particular issue.....but we do fundamentally agree that White got a raw deal.

Too funny.....the clown needs a headline to make it official....

Wrong again, my intellectually impotent Bravo....anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension level can see that I am asking Mojo to provide among HIS MANY sourced headlines just ONE that meets the challenge I provide based on the exchanges we had. Obviously, my magically dim Bravo, you need a refresher course in reading comprehension.

:lmao: I don't usually laugh at retarded posters, but I'll make an exception for Clarabell......

Poor Bravo...he's so freaking clueless that his condescending attittude only enhances pity upon him. Oh, and for those not of the "Happy Days" generation...Clarabell was the name of a clown sidekick on a old live TV kids show called (wait for it) Howdy Doody! (I kid you not!). Obviously, this is a big insult among Bravo's peer group.

PS. Don't forget the chronology of the posts to make it all clear....hahahah

See folks, dummies like Bravo mock what they don't (or don't want to) understand....they hate the phrase "chronology of the posts" because if one adheres to such, it exposes the dishonesty and lack of factual/intellectual standing of posts from folks like Bravo. So each time they bitch about it, it's just music to my ears!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Hint: the term "killer" is a generic term, usually (but not always) denoting someone who was CONVICTED of illegally killing another person. People have referred to hunters as "killers", but that is an uncommon usage of the term. Soldiers have also been referred to as killers (especially during Vietnam). But, again, it is not a common usage. No shit sherlock, I JUST POINTED OUT THAT COURTS DON'T GIVE SUCH AS AN "OFFICIAL" RULING, AS YOU STATED.However, using the term in reference to someone convicted of manslaughter IS common usage. Actually, it's a common misuage of the word when referring to the conviction. Any fool can say, "He's a convicted criminal", but when you read into the case and find out the "conviction" was for an unpaid parking ticket, the phrase loses much of it's sensationalistic connotation....same thing with calling someone a "killer" and then finding out the gun went off when the person had the gun to defend his home and was grabbed by a man out to beat up his son. No matter how dear you hold onto your myopic view, the WHOLE TRUTH has a way of letting some of the hot air out.White, in what is IMO a travesty of justice, was convicted of illegally killing another human. No argument there. In a further travesty of justice, he was also convicted of illegally owning a firearm. If memory serves, the ONE weapon that WASN'T registered in White's house was the one involved in the altercation. Bad choice in the heat of the moment....but like it or not, it was against the law to own unregistered/unlicensed weapon Mojo's headline is accurate, as are those of every news article he posted using the same term for the same case. Actually, the majority of Mojo's headlines do the same thing I just pointed out is inaccurate. Repeating a mistake doesn't make it correct....and to date Mojo has NOT provided a headline/story were US troops are generally referred to as "killers". You are incorrect (big surprise there) insisting that the term "killer", as used, implies intent. You keep repeating that, but as I've just demonstrated above, your "logic" has serious flaws/errors in it....no surprise there. That is your own prejudiced interpretation. (ie: you think White got a raw deal, so you do not like him being referred to as a killer.)

Sorry, but your supposition and conjecture as to what I've been saying and why is incorrect (as usual). All I did was point out the connotation of Mojo's title. He and you work very hard to avoid this point, as strict definition of words have to be considered in the context they are used. I told Mojo to look up the word connotation to understand what I'm talking about. He won't do it...I trust you'll have more intellectual honesty.

 

[Rationalist]

I am pleased by Patterson's decision, but I must ask, since when do Al Sharpton and other liberals favor 2nd Amendment rights and castle law? I cannot help but find this entire matter very amusing.

I'm going to bookmark this thread, as I have no doubt it will come in handy in the future.

 

[Cancel8]

Sorry, but your supposition and conjecture as to what I've been saying and why is incorrect (as usual). All I did was point out the connotation of Mojo's title. He and you work very hard to avoid this point, as strict definition of words have to be considered in the context they are used. I told Mojo to look up the word connotation to understand what I'm talking about. He won't do it...I trust you'll have more intellectual honesty.

Is it possible that your connotation is based on a personal bias?

 

[Socrtease]

this has always been an intense issue regarding self defense. the law, or government, tries to make killing in self defense a last resort...hence...if you can retreat, you should, as that would be preferable to killing someone. i think the line is heavily blurred around "can" retreat. unless you're in your house and you believe your life or those around you lives are in imminent danger

In New Mexico, our jury instruction for self defense informs the jury that there is "no duty to retreat" in the state of New Mexico. All that needs be present is the fear of being in jeopardy of death or great bodily harm. You can kill in self defense in NM ANYWHERE. We have an open carry law, and a concealed carry for those that have a CC permit. Several years ago a man pulled his gun on cop in a parking lot and shot him. He was not killed but there were enough witnesses to the incident that the jury believed the cop was the aggressor and found the man not guilty.

 

[Cancel8]

In New Mexico, our jury instruction for self defense informs the jury that there is "no duty to retreat" in the state of New Mexico. All that needs be present is the fear of being in jeopardy of death or great bodily harm. You can kill in self defense in NM ANYWHERE. We have an open carry law, and a concealed carry for those that have a CC permit. Several years ago a man pulled his gun on cop in a parking lot and shot him. He was not killed but there were enough witnesses to the incident that the jury believed the cop was the aggressor and found the man not guilty.

..." White testified he was turning to retreat when Cicciaro lunged for the gun..."

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/cicciaro-s-father-breaks-his-silence-1.2568856

 

[NOVA]

Hint: the term "killer" is a generic term, usually (but not always) denoting someone who was CONVICTED of illegally killing another person. People have referred to hunters as "killers", but that is an uncommon usage of the term. Soldiers have also been referred to as killers (especially during Vietnam). But, again, it is not a common usage. However, using the term in reference to someone convicted of manslaughter IS common usage.

White, in what is IMO a travesty of justice, was convicted of illegally killing another human. In a further travesty of justice, he was also convicted of illegally owning a firearm. Mojo's headline is accurate, as are those of every news article he posted using the same term for the same case. You are incorrect (big surprise there) insisting that the term "killer", as used, implies intent. That is your own prejudiced interpretation. (ie: you think White got a raw deal, so you do not like him being referred to as a killer.)

Yes.....its worth repeating for our resident idiot....

He now been pwned and exposed as an ass...as in jackass...by so many posters, its hard to keep count....but you gotta admire his tenaciousness...like a rabid housefly, that won't go away....

 

[Cancel8]

Careful, by using red text and bold fonts, "TaiChiLiberal" may infer a "connotation"...

 

[Taichiliberal]

I am pleased by Patterson's decision, but I must ask, since when do Al Sharpton and other liberals favor 2nd Amendment rights and castle law? I cannot help but find this entire matter very amusing.

I'm going to bookmark this thread, as I have no doubt it will come in handy in the future.

Not all "liberals" are rabid ANTI-gun nuts....Al Sharpton has been against gun violence due to a plethora of illegal handguns that flood into NYC via other states with lesser gun control laws...but I don't recall him going on record as being AGAINST the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't confuse gun control laws with automatically being against the Second Amendment, as each State can set it's own level of gun registration/ownership laws.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Good Luck
Hint: the term "killer" is a generic term, usually (but not always) denoting someone who was CONVICTED of illegally killing another person. People have referred to hunters as "killers", but that is an uncommon usage of the term. Soldiers have also been referred to as killers (especially during Vietnam). But, again, it is not a common usage. However, using the term in reference to someone convicted of manslaughter IS common usage.

White, in what is IMO a travesty of justice, was convicted of illegally killing another human. In a further travesty of justice, he was also convicted of illegally owning a firearm. Mojo's headline is accurate, as are those of every news article he posted using the same term for the same case. You are incorrect (big surprise there) insisting that the term "killer", as used, implies intent. That is your own prejudiced interpretation. (ie: you think White got a raw deal, so you do not like him being referred to as a killer.)

Yes.....its worth repeating for our resident idiot....

He now been pwned and exposed as an ass...as in jackass...by so many posters, its hard to keep count....but you gotta admire his tenaciousness...like a rabid housefly, that won't go away....

Posts #84 and #85....examples of what a bitter loser our Bravo is!

 

[Schadenfreude]

Not all "liberals" are rabid ANTI-gun nuts....Al Sharpton has been against gun violence due to a plethora of illegal handguns that flood into NYC via other states with lesser gun control laws...but I don't recall him going on record as being AGAINST the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't confuse gun control laws with automatically being against the Second Amendment, as each State can set it's own level of gun registration/ownership laws.

what about new york's sullivan act

 

[Cancel8]

The “chronology of the posts”:

We begin with a red herring:

…Tell you what, Mojo....why don't you apply the mindset you have here to our troops....by your standards, they're "killers", right?..

…Killing is done by our troops, genius. So by YOUR mindset, I can start a thread saying "US killers in Afghanistan....etc."...

…And when you have a major newspaper refer to our troops as "killers" or YOU start a thread saying "killers in Afghanistan.." and then post a story attaching that attribute regarding US troop actions, THEN maybe you might have a point...

…The article you provide DOES NOT have a headline that says " US Killers Afghanistan accused of murder".....it says 6 ways to Sunday that they are "ACCUSED" of murder, that they "ACCUSED of FORMING A KILL SQUAD....they are NOT generally referred to as killers, which is how YOU referred to White in your title.

Now it’s a “headline”…before, it was “when you have a major newspaper refer to our troops as "killers".

The Guardian isn’t a major newspaper in “TaiChiLiberals” opinion, apparently. guardian.co.uk is one of the highest-traffic English-language news websites. According to its editor, The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world, after the New York Times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

Which is about a group of soldiers who went rogue and "killed for fun"...the article DOES NOT refer to US SOLDIERS IN GENERAL AS KILLERS, which has a different connotation.

You can do this all day, but YOU CAN'T PRODUCE THE ARTICLE THAT APPLIES YOUR MYOPIC GENERALIZATION TO US SOLDIERS AS YOU DO TO WHITE...

Posting in caps….generally recognized as “screaming” in web parlance. The very thing “TaiChiLiberal” accused me of, but cannot substantiate.

So, now we have progressed from “when you have a major newspaper refer to our troops as "killers” to “a headline that says " US SOLDIERS IN GENERAL AS KILLERS".

For his next trick, “TaiChiLiberal” morphs his trusty challenge to require that I produce a major newspaper headline in which the editors “refer to US SOLDIERS IN GENERAL AS KILLERS”. A far cry from “when you have a major newspaper refer to our troops as "killers".

But “TaiChiLiberal” isn’t done moving goal posts yet!

… Mojo cannot meet my challenge to display any news headline (maybe I should have stipulated US news) or coverage that declares the actions of our troops as "killers". Instead, Mojo shotguns a slew of INDIVIDUAL cases of crimes (alleged and otherwise) commited (sic) by soldiers. Remember, by Mojo's definition, ANY SOLDIER THAT KILLS FOR ANY REASON IS A KILLER.....so all Mojo has to do is show me a headline in a US paper that refers to US troop actions in Iraq or Afghanistan in general, as "killers"..

Now, “TaiChiLiberal” has himself convinced that his original challenge was to produce a “headline”.

Originally, it was “when you have a major newspaper refer to our troops as "killers".

“TaiChiLiberal” then laments “maybe I should have stipulated US news…or coverage that declares the actions of our troops as "killers"”

But you didn’t.

 

[Good Luck]

Just wait. Touchy "has not yet begun to fight". Wait until he starts linking to his own posts as references, and refers to the "chronology" as proof that he has won the debate.

Truly, the dishonest hypocritical twit isn't worth the effort. I don't know why I even acknowledged him.

All I really wanted to say is White got a raw deal, not only on the manslaughter charge, but also the weapons charge. And, while commuting his sentence is not AS raw a deal as the court handed him, he still has to live with a manslaughter conviction, as well as felony weapons conviction on his record - so it's STILL a raw deal.

 

[Cancel8]

Just wait. Touchy "has not yet begun to fight". Wait until he starts linking to his own posts as references, and refers to the "chronology" as proof that he has won the debate.

Truly, the dishonest hypocritical twit isn't worth the effort. I don't know why I even acknowledged him.

All I really wanted to say is White got a raw deal, not only on the manslaughter charge, but also the weapons charge. And, while commuting his sentence is not AS raw a deal as the court handed him, he still has to live with a manslaughter conviction, as well as felony weapons conviction on his record - so it's STILL a raw deal.

If the NFL ever needs someone to move goal posts, I will endorse "TaiChiLiberal" as a highly experienced candidate.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not all "liberals" are rabid ANTI-gun nuts....Al Sharpton has been against gun violence due to a plethora of illegal handguns that flood into NYC via other states with lesser gun control laws...but I don't recall him going on record as being AGAINST the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't confuse gun control laws with automatically being against the Second Amendment, as each State can set it's own level of gun registration/ownership laws.

what about new york's sullivan act

What about it? Like with the recent repeal in Washington, DC....all New Yorkers have to do is get off their butts and vote it out.

Given the penchant for violence and animosity among the various ethnic, racial, religous, social groups in NYC, plus the worlds largest city police force having to deal with all the murders and assaults by the law abiding citizens, I doubt repeal will be anytime soon.

Again, Not all "liberals" are rabid ANTI-gun nuts....Al Sharpton has been against gun violence due to a plethora of illegal handguns that flood into NYC via other states with lesser gun control laws...but I don't recall him going on record as being AGAINST the 2nd Amendment. And not all gun control laws are against the second amendment.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Just wait. Touchy "has not yet begun to fight". Wait until he starts linking to his own posts as references, and refers to the "chronology" as proof that he has won the debate.

Truly, the dishonest hypocritical twit isn't worth the effort. I don't know why I even acknowledged him.

All I really wanted to say is White got a raw deal, not only on the manslaughter charge, but also the weapons charge. And, while commuting his sentence is not AS raw a deal as the court handed him, he still has to live with a manslaughter conviction, as well as felony weapons conviction on his record - so it's STILL a raw deal.

And here folks, is why these clunkheads are so easily defeated on an simple debate.

Post #85 basically shuts down Good Luck's bullshit....but he's such dishonest intellectual coward that instead of honestly reponding and discussing the points I put forth, he just follows up the insipid stubborness and BS of Mojo...whom I dismissed much earlier.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I agreed with Good Luck on the basic point he made, and the disagreements were essentially no big deal. But Good Luck, like Mojo, Bravo and the other willfully ignorant peanut gallery here...just doesn't like to be proven wrong. His whining to Mojo is pathetic, because on something as anonymous as this forum, Good Luck just can't handle being wrong.

 

[Cancel8]

And here folks, is why these clunkheads are so easily defeated on an simple debate.

Post #85 basically shuts down Good Luck's bullshit....but he's such dishonest intellectual coward that instead of honestly reponding and discussing the points I put forth, he just follows up the insipid stubborness and BS of Mojo...whom I dismissed much earlier.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I agreed with Good Luck on the basic point he made, and the disagreements were essentially no big deal. But Good Luck, like Mojo, Bravo and the other willfully ignorant peanut gallery here...just doesn't like to be proven wrong. His whining to Mojo is pathetic, because on something as anonymous as this forum, Good Luck just can't handle being wrong.

So you "defeated" someone in a debate?

When was that?