Liberals can't follow rule of law

Bfgrn said:
Dumber than ALL...

In your tiny little pea brain, only liberals oppose gun control, have abortions or are atheists...

You've identified the excuse for all YOUR failures in life...
Click to expand...

you obviously are running on auto pilot lib mode. you have almost no clue of my political ideology and observations. why don't you research me for awhile, see if you think that still.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you obviously are running on auto pilot lib mode. you have almost no clue of my political ideology and observations. why don't you research me for awhile, see if you think that still.
Click to expand...

I've researched enough of your pea brain ideology liberal this and liberal that ...

You're a right wing pea brain...

Don't cross a street without your mommy...
 
Ramos got what he deserved, plain and simple. He was probably an illegal alien anyway.

In the 19th century, it was not an uncommon punishment for a horse thief to be hanged for his crime. People depended upon their horses for their livelihood, in the same way that many people depend on their cell phones today. It is highly possible that Solis' phone contained irreplaceable business contacts, for example. Did any of you consider that possibility?

Why is it that when pressed to choose sides, liberals always defend the criminal rather than the victim. It seems to me that everything in their sick, twisted little world is backwards.
 
Just imagine if Texas students were allowed to carry guns on campus.

"But officer he stole my iPod, I had to shoot him".
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://www.ksat.com/news/19594250/detail.html


this guy should not be on trial for murder, much less even been charged.

what is it with the rule of law that you liberals have a hard time with?
Click to expand...


If Solis hadn't been stupid drunk, he would have done what sensible people do, which was to go back into the bar, call the police, give them the information, and wait for them to find and arrest Ramos.

A friend in the vehicle who testified said he hadn't seen any fight between the two men before Ramos drove off.

"Shooting under the influence". What is it about that absurdity that conservatives don't understand?

http://manolaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-was-just-trying-to-get-their.html
 
Tabasco said:
Ramos got what he deserved, plain and simple. He was probably an illegal alien anyway.

In the 19th century, it was not an uncommon punishment for a horse thief to be hanged for his crime. People depended upon their horses for their livelihood, in the same way that many people depend on their cell phones today. It is highly possible that Solis' phone contained irreplaceable business contacts, for example. Did any of you consider that possibility?

Why is it that when pressed to choose sides, liberals always defend the criminal rather than the victim. It seems to me that everything in their sick, twisted little world is backwards.
Click to expand...

THIS!
the last point is a very good one.

LIBERALS ALWAYS SIDE WITH CRIMINALS
 
he should be convicted of murder.
A cell phone,
STY education is a terrible thing to waste, even on an idiot like you.
 
Last edited:
Tabasco said:
Ramos got what he deserved, plain and simple. He was probably an illegal alien anyway.

In the 19th century, it was not an uncommon punishment for a horse thief to be hanged for his crime. People depended upon their horses for their livelihood, in the same way that many people depend on their cell phones today. It is highly possible that Solis' phone contained irreplaceable business contacts, for example. Did any of you consider that possibility?

Why is it that when pressed to choose sides, liberals always defend the criminal rather than the victim. It seems to me that everything in their sick, twisted little world is backwards.
Click to expand...

What we considered is that Solis' life wasn't being threatened, both men were drinking, Trujillo, who was in the truck with Ramos says there was no fight beforehand, and that if Solis didn't have a gun, he would have gone into the bar, called the police, and waited for them to pick up and arrest Ramos.

Ramos paid for a misdemeanor with the death penalty. Now it's time for Solis to get what he deserves.

http://manolaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-was-just-trying-to-get-their.html
 
christiefan915 said:
What we considered is that Solis' life wasn't being threatened, both men were drinking, Trujillo, who was in the truck with Ramos says there was no fight beforehand, and that if Solis didn't have a gun, he would have gone into the bar, called the police, and waited for them to pick up and arrest Ramos.

Ramos paid for a misdemeanor with the death penalty. Now it's time for Solis to get what he deserves.

http://manolaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-was-just-trying-to-get-their.html
Click to expand...

his property was being stolen with little likelihood that it would ever be returned. By LAW, deadly force was authorized to prevent the imminent loss of that property, whether his life was in danger or not.

That is the written law, so why is he on trial?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
his property was being stolen with little likelihood that it would ever be returned. By LAW, deadly force was authorized to prevent the imminent loss of that property, whether his life was in danger or not.

That is the written law, so why is he on trial?
Click to expand...


Whether it was reasonable to shoot the guy is a matter for the jury to resolve. Based on what he testified to at the trial:

"About that time, I got angry, I lost control," Solis said. "I mean I lost, I was... I was frustrated."
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like he was acting with the reasonable belief that his property could not be recovered by any means other than shooting the guy, but rather he was just pissed off and shot him. "I was pissed off" is not a legitimate defense for murder.
 
Dungheap said:
Whether it was reasonable to shoot the guy is a matter for the jury to resolve. Based on what he testified to at the trial:



It doesn't sound like he was acting with the reasonable belief that his property could not be recovered by any means other than shooting the guy, but rather he was just pissed off and shot him. "I was pissed off" is not a legitimate defense for murder.
Click to expand...

this is why I preach that the police are NOT your friends, shut your damn mouth in ANY shooting incident.

hopefully he's got a good lawyer.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is why I preach that the police are NOT your friends, shut your damn mouth in ANY shooting incident.

hopefully he's got a good lawyer.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should instead preach that you shouldn't shoot people, particularly over a cell phone.

An ounce of prevention is worth 20 to life.



Edit: And no, he doesn't have a good lawyer but that's not his biggest problem. His biggest problem is that he killed someone over a cell phone.
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe you should instead preach that you shouldn't shoot people, particularly over a cell phone.
Click to expand...
maybe the other dude shouldn't have tried to steal someone elses cellphone? Unlike most libs, we texans feel property is worth defending. That is why TX law is written the way that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top