Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charlottesville

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    I don't know if you have read all that have being said here... so I am giving a bit of of a frame to where I am coming from...

    Some people is suggesting that I am being manipulated by the mainstream media. I am sending them the same question back.

    Of course, when they ask me the question... it is a very reasonable and sensitive question to ask... no a single time there is a notion that they are calling me communist... Though I have directly being call an antifa...

    I must have missed something, Simpleman, because I cannot find nor recollect any instance of anybody calling you Communist or ANTIFA or anything of those things.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.
    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

    Comment


    • Simpleman, Dee-- and anybody else who is apparently unconcerned with the fundamental principles of liberty at stake here...

      There is an entertaining example, variations of which have been illustrated for ages-- which has been circulating the Internet for some time and goes something like this...

      Ronald Opus Suicide - Did Ronald Opus jump off a building in 1994's most bizarre suicide?
      http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.asp

      (Spoiler: False)


      If a man is jumping off a building to his death on the street below. And another man shoots him through the heart as he passes by the 97th floor window, is he guilty of murder?

      And of course the answer is YES.

      But if that same man is committing a robbery and happens to shoot toward the direction of the window and causes the same result, then the answer is NO.


      The difference between the one and the other is the MENS REA, which put simply is the intention behind the act.

      Wikipedia: Mens Rea
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

      "Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes."

      And futher:
      "Levels of mens rea


      Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus), and whether he intended to commit the crime (mens rea). However, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability, which depend on the surrounding elements of the crime: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result). The definition of a crime is thus constructed using only these elements rather than the colorful language of mens rea:


      Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
      — 18 U.S.C. §1111 (traditional common law)


      A person commits an offense if he:


      (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual
      — portion of Texas Penal Code ch. 19 §19.02 (modern offense element)
      The traditional common law definitions and the modern definitions approach the crime from different angles.


      In the traditional common law approach, the definition includes:


      actus reus: unlawful killing of a human being;


      mens rea: malice aforethought.


      Modern law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Homicide is a "results" crime in that it forbids any "intentional" or "knowing" conduct that results in the death of another human being. "Intentional" in this sense means the actor possessed a "purpose" or "desire" that his or her objective (i.e. death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that the death would result. Thus, the actus reus and mens rea of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows:


      actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual;


      mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death.


      In the modern approach, the attendant circumstances tend to replace the traditional mens rea, indicating the level of culpability as well as other circumstances. For example, the crime of theft of government property would include as an attendant circumstance that the property belong to the government.[6]"
      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
      It's time to call it out for what it is.
      == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

      Comment


      • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        I have being reading some articles in Vanguard America.
        Interestingly, this is the first time in my life that I've ever heard of "Vanguard America". It's quite obvious that you know FAR MORE about Nazis and White Supremacists than I do.

        I wonder why...??

        (See how that goes?)
        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
        It's time to call it out for what it is.
        == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

        Comment


        • Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
          hehe

          If I ever get run over by a lunatic in a car I hope Mr.E is nearby.

          While everyone else is beating the shit out of the car and anyone else they don't like. Mr.E would be getting an ambulance and saving my life.
          I would like to think so. But it's hard to tell what anybody would do with a gun to their heads. Especially if they're hungry or their lives or their children's lives are at stake.

          One of the hardest things to do is to go out and look at the results of totalitarian regimes. Doesn't matter which one. Take your pick. German Holocaust or the Anti-Jewish Pogroms. Or the so-called "Rape of Nanking". Or the extermination of the Armenians. Or the Russians. Or the Poles. Or the Cambodians. Or the incredibly savage carnage in Rwanda and the Sudan. Or Nicaragua-- or a hundred other places and times.

          We humans are exceptionally good at committing horrendous, heinous acts and subjugating others, and subjecting them to indescribable acts of horror and misery. If we were even a tenth as good at *CARING* about each other, our world would be a wonderful place.

          I just cannot fathom how a world that can produce *THIS* can produce such incredible hate and carnage.

          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
          It's time to call it out for what it is.
          == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

          Comment


          • Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
            Alison don't disappointment.

            Indeed, she does not.
            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.
            == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

            Comment


            • I know Matrix already posted this on it's own-- but it's definitely relevant in this thread as well:

              The Unfortunate Fallout of Campus Postmodernism
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...postmodernism/
              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
              It's time to call it out for what it is.
              == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

              Comment


              • Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                Whatever point he had, he's shat all over. He literally just wants to do what people have said on the forum is injustice. Arresting people who are guilty of association with Fields is wrong, it doesn't matter how despicable they are, or even how possible it was they filled his head with shit. Accusations are just one of consequences of free speech unless they have evidence that can stand up in court. Guilt by association, guilt by accusation are not acceptable in the enforcement of the law, even if they are allowed in free speech. An equal system of justice with the same evidentiary standards for all is something you must use free speech to defend.
                Then again we prosecute the Taliban for association... as well as the alkaeda, as well as Charles Mason, as well as the mafia... it is not a new idea...

                Time to apply the wisdom of the internets, invoke Godwin's Law and stop feeding the troll.
                Second time you call me a troll.. first time I didn't wanted to correct it, because it would take me a lot of work and efford to demostrate to you of the contrary...

                Right now I don't have the time to invest on this. However, if you are really interested on this i can produce the evidence that shows you that I am not a troll.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                  I doubt you'll find a single one of us shedding any tears or losing any sleep over them. But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between not agreeing with them (even passionately and with every fiber of your being) and actually PREVENTING THEM from speaking / exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to expression.

                  The rest of us *ALSO* have the right to free expression-- and the BEST expression, IMO, would be to LAUGH OUR ASSES OFF at everything stupid thing that comes out of their mouths-- up until the point that doing so becomes active suppression of their right to speak / express themselves.

                  Understanding the rights we have in this country is sometimes a bit of a challenge. Living our lives in such a manner that we are *TOLERANT* of opinions we do not agree with-- even more so. And that is both the promise of America, and the reality of America. And the challenge we all face as Americans. We claim that we are great because we are a free, open and tolerant society. But the true test of our values and beliefs comes not when it is easy-- but when it is *HARD*.
                  I understand what you say on the matters of let the fools talk, because that help us recognize them...

                  However, I have a slightly different opinion, when it comes about freedoms. My doctrine is better explain with this comical example:

                  I have the freedom to wave my fist on the air... but this freedom ends where the nose of my neighbor begins...

                  Read OP, neo-nazis interfered with the freedom of the jews to practice their faith and preserve their culture... that, in my opinion, is pretty much well into the nose of the neighboring.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                    Your points aren't wrong, and they are valid, but they are missing the mark by a country mile. The issue isn't whether one specific event or another is heinous or bad-- of course they are, we all know that and we all acknowledge that.

                    The issue is TOTALITARIAN THINKING, which isn't limited to either the Left *OR* the Right. The issue is people lining up behind ARMED THUGS who are willing to commit VIOLENCE in their name-- and those same people standing ready to give them a pass, to conveniently look the other way, while those thugs do their dirty work, as they rush to rationalize their violence, and to justify their violence, and to cover-up their violence, and to white-wash their violence.

                    **THAT** is the issue.
                    It is even possible that the people that got run by the car dislikes antifa, and their tactics...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                      I have the freedom to wave my fist on the air... but this freedom ends where the nose of my neighbor begins...
                      Yup. I completely agree. And it's not even because it's "comical". It happens to be the truth.

                      Further, I suspect that most, if not actually *ALL*, of the people here engaging with you, believe the same thing.
                      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                      It's time to call it out for what it is.
                      == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                        I understand what you say on the matters of let the fools talk, because that help us recognize them...

                        However, I have a slightly different opinion, when it comes about freedoms. My doctrine is better explain with this comical example:

                        I have the freedom to wave my fist on the air... but this freedom ends where the nose of my neighbor begins...

                        Read OP, neo-nazis interfered with the freedom of the jews to practice their faith and preserve their culture... that, in my opinion, is pretty much well into the nose of the neighboring.

                        I'm not defending neo-nazis or anybody who uses violence to achieve their political purpose. I have already denounced hate and violence many times in both this thread and in the general forums many, many, many times. I agree that neo-nazis are bad and they deserve the same punishment as ANTIFA-- for the ones that have been violent and use violence to suppress other people's constitutionally-protected speech, expression or any other right-- they deserved to get brought up on charged and put to trial. I say this about *ANYBODY* of ANY persuasion that meets the above criteria. I am completely unconcerned about *WHAT* their beliefs are or how strongly they believe it. Violence has no place in our political discourse.
                        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                        It's time to call it out for what it is.
                        == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                          It is even possible that the people that got run by the car dislikes antifa, and their tactics...

                          Sure it is... and... um.. so what?
                          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                          It's time to call it out for what it is.
                          == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                            So far, it seems the jury is still out. If they knew for certain that he went there for the specific purpose to murder people with his car, they would have charged him with first degree murder, instead of second degree murder. So that right there is a very good indicator that there was more going on than meets the eye. Why else would they not charge him with first degree murder seeing as how there were so many eye-witnesses, corroborating stories, video footage from practically every angle, slow-motion frame-by-frame analysis...
                            As I have being reading Vanguard America, I find this article there:

                            Jewish Fake Media: Hush Crimes Are Us
                            http://nationalvanguard.org/2017/07/...crimes-are-us/

                            The article is about the dead of a boy, accordingly to the article a black woman torture and kill the boy with a torch. The article gives a very explicit, almost pornographic descriptions of the events, and then present some questions, one of them is related to the small coverture of the events, by the media.. claiming that the media is own by the jews and the jews are hiding the white genocide... and so on and go on... but the second point is this same one you ask here... why she is not getting a dead sentence and is getting just a life sentence instead.

                            The article proceed to answer the question, however i na different way than your answer...

                            As your answer is that it must be that the lack of evidence must be the reason behind the "soft hand"... the article, instead, claims that the justice system is corrupted and did not apply the full charges that could be apply, because they are in agreement with the criminal, they are protecting him... so to speak...

                            Do I think any of the 2 reasonings is what motivated the DA to go for second degree instead of first? well I am goign to reserve my opinion, on this question... ans my opinion is already creating so much trouble... better keep it for myself.

                            Also I apologise to bring over an article from that source... but it is what I am reading now, so it is what I can conveniently use as a reference frame.

                            Personal integrity is tough. It's even tougher when it runs counter to what everybody else wants to think and declare.
                            That is one of the reasons why I am a moral relativist... 100 years ago the moral thing to do was to discriminate and attack homosexuals... now they call it bigotry and is a bad thing to do...

                            So plain and simple the moral good is nothing but the opinion of the masses... If someone's personal values is in direct opposition to the opinion of the masses, by definition that person is morally bad, on that specific matter.

                            There is an issue here which transcends the events of that day, as ugly as they were-- which is what are our true American values, and what are our obligations as citizens to hold true to those values, to safeguard those values, with the goal of maintaining those values?

                            I would like to direct your attention to the situation of Nicola Sacco and Barolomeo Vanzetti, who were anarchists convicted of murdering two people during an armed robbery in 1920 and-- amid hot public sentiments advocating for swift punishment for the killers-- were subsequently tried, convicted and executed in the electric chair. Both men were unrelenting in their anarchist views which advocated "relentless warfare against a violent and oppressive government". It grew to become a 'cause célèbre' (a famous cause) which was taken up by celebrities, artists, and activists of the day. Both men maintained their innocence of the crime to their deaths, and their families continued advocating for them after their deaths. Subsequent analysis and more modern forensics techniques cleared them of the crimes for which they had been convicted and the government declared them to be exonerated post mortem.

                            Wikipedia: Sacco and Vanzetti
                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti


                            My point being that a swift rush to judgement is not always the soundest course for the furtherment of a free and open society. And indeed, as the "Innocence Project" has so profoundly demonstrated, police, prosecutors, judges and juries very often get it wrong-- even when they believe they are doing the right thing. From innocent mistakes, imperfect memories, to judicial misconduct and blatant manufactured evidence-- people get wrongfully convicted all the time. And in fact, when you crunch the numbers, it turns out that the number one risk factor for being wrongfully convicted is simply to be male.

                            Innocence Project
                            https://www.innocenceproject.org/


                            What I am hoping you understand by this point, Dee...
                            OH, I'm sorry I though you was talking to me, never mind then.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              Simpleman, Dee-- and anybody else who is apparently unconcerned with the fundamental principles of liberty at stake here...
                              Ok this one is directed to me, so ignore the other and let's go with this...

                              There is an entertaining example, variations of which have been illustrated for ages-- which has been circulating the Internet for some time and goes something like this...

                              Ronald Opus Suicide - Did Ronald Opus jump off a building in 1994's most bizarre suicide?
                              http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.asp

                              (Spoiler: False)


                              If a man is jumping off a building to his death on the street below. And another man shoots him through the heart as he passes by the 97th floor window, is he guilty of murder?

                              And of course the answer is YES.

                              But if that same man is committing a robbery and happens to shoot toward the direction of the window and causes the same result, then the answer is NO.


                              The difference between the one and the other is the MENS REA, which put simply is the intention behind the act.

                              Wikipedia: Mens Rea
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

                              "Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes."

                              And futher:
                              "Levels of mens rea


                              Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus), and whether he intended to commit the crime (mens rea). However, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability, which depend on the surrounding elements of the crime: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result). The definition of a crime is thus constructed using only these elements rather than the colorful language of mens rea:


                              Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
                              — 18 U.S.C. §1111 (traditional common law)


                              A person commits an offense if he:


                              (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual
                              — portion of Texas Penal Code ch. 19 §19.02 (modern offense element)
                              The traditional common law definitions and the modern definitions approach the crime from different angles.


                              In the traditional common law approach, the definition includes:


                              actus reus: unlawful killing of a human being;


                              mens rea: malice aforethought.


                              Modern law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Homicide is a "results" crime in that it forbids any "intentional" or "knowing" conduct that results in the death of another human being. "Intentional" in this sense means the actor possessed a "purpose" or "desire" that his or her objective (i.e. death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that the death would result. Thus, the actus reus and mens rea of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows:


                              actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual;


                              mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death.


                              In the modern approach, the attendant circumstances tend to replace the traditional mens rea, indicating the level of culpability as well as other circumstances. For example, the crime of theft of government property would include as an attendant circumstance that the property belong to the government.[6]"
                              Yes, I am starting on the bases that the guy run people over with his car on purpose.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                                As I have being reading Vanguard America, I find this article there:

                                Jewish Fake Media: Hush Crimes Are Us
                                http://nationalvanguard.org/2017/07/...crimes-are-us/

                                The article is about the dead of a boy, accordingly to the article a black woman torture and kill the boy with a torch. The article gives a very explicit, almost pornographic descriptions of the events, and then present some questions, one of them is related to the small coverture of the events, by the media.. claiming that the media is own by the jews and the jews are hiding the white genocide... and so on and go on... but the second point is this same one you ask here... why she is not getting a dead sentence and is getting just a life sentence instead.

                                The article proceed to answer the question, however i na different way than your answer...

                                As your answer is that it must be that the lack of evidence must be the reason behind the "soft hand"... the article, instead, claims that the justice system is corrupted and did not apply the full charges that could be apply, because they are in agreement with the criminal, they are protecting him... so to speak...

                                Do I think any of the 2 reasonings is what motivated the DA to go for second degree instead of first? well I am goign to reserve my opinion, on this question... ans my opinion is already creating so much trouble... better keep it for myself.

                                I don't understand you, Simpleman. Is it a language-barrier difference?

                                I pointed out that in the current climate the prosecuting attorney could THROW THE FUCKING BOOK at the dude and GET AWAY WITH IT. There are so many people whipped up into a frenzy and riding hell-bent for leather, they could have him tried, convicted and strung-up from the nearest tree in a week's time and nobody would lose a wink of sleep over it.

                                And you're saying that the prosecuting attorney (district attorney) *DIDN'T* because he might be CORRUPT???

                                Of all the things you've said and points you've tried to make in this thread, THAT one is truly baffling to me. I must say.
                                FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                                It's time to call it out for what it is.
                                == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                                The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                                http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X