TurdBomber
Active poster
I want issues decided by tweet.
educated electorate!
Leave it to you, @HHusky, to not understand a judge explaining his reasoning behind a Judgment.
Ever been present for a Judgment Entry? Doubtful.
Did you listen? (doubtful)
What did you disagree with?
After assualting Ngo he took his phone. Who cares what his fucking intent was? His actions explain his intent and he should have been found guilty if for no other reason than to deter his shitty behavior in the future.
Was he not charged for assault? Even if he was found guilty of stealing his phone, what’s the phone’s value? Sounds like robbery at worst would have been a misdemeanor.
Serious question, was he charges for assault? If not, why?
Doesn't appear so. I don't know why he wasn't.
Because, in the judge's mind, Ngo's filming of the perp with his phone "escalated things." Like "asking a question" or scribbling notes, and other stuff journalists do for a living.
We really need to get rid of that "provocative" First Amendment thing.
You're working too hard, TurdForBrains.
Intent to permanently deprive him of his property. An element of the crime.
Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge sitting as jury.
Acquittal is the Constitutionally required outcome.
It's almost as if you don't know what reasoning is.
Missing the Entire Point by a thousand miles, once again.
The outcome is not the issue, you fucking idiot. It's the Judge's reasoning throughout his explanation as to how he reached his verdict. I'm not impressed with your "See Dick. See Dick run. See Dick run after the ball" level of legal analysis. It's as tedious and unrevealing as anything else you poast.
I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on a sack-of-shit pettifogger like you.
He's the jury, dimwit. He has a doubt as to an element of the crime. He cannot possibly be wrong about the fact[/i] of his own doubt.
Acquittal is mandatory.
Update: Missing the Entire Point by a MILLION miles.
@HHusky's Retardation Confirmed.

