So this is actually a big deal.

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First of all, it's an "alleged" crime until this person is convicted. Secondly, because someone does something you don't agree with does NOT make them a domestic terrorist. Thirdly, the onus is on you to present your argument. My position is evident in this thread and I stand by it. You can't attack me without even attempting to address the issue and expect me to take you seriously.

throwing a firebomb at a cop car is not something two people disagree over, it's a crime

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First of all, it's an "alleged" crime until this person is convicted. Secondly, because someone does something you don't agree with does NOT make them a domestic terrorist. Thirdly, the onus is on you to present your argument. My position is evident in this thread and I stand by it. You can't attack me without even attempting to address the issue and expect me to take you seriously.

Your "argument" is utterly asinine. Just because a low end court made some novel ruling isn't a basis for an argument. You and I both agree that the ruling was terrible, but you somehow think he deserved bail and therefore this is "a big deal." You also have a clear lack of understanding on how our legal system actually operates and therefore need to educate yourself and then make a logical argument which I will engage. Your innocent until proven guilty is a correct statement, but it doesn't apply here.

You are right in your second point though so kudos; however, firebombing a cop car as some political motive is a clear act of domestic terrorism. You, being a child, probably didn't understand that much and made some rapid abstraction and came up with that garbage.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alleged crime.

Damn do you guys ever get tired of being wrong and looking stupid?

Hey I know, call me fat again. Maybe this time it will hurt my feelings and get me to stop posting.

Yes, everyone around you is wrong and you are actually the enlightened one. One day you're going to have an epiphany and realize the opposite is true.

[Abacab-]

Who is this Lexical faggot? All talking about the legal system like he is full partner and shit

[Lexical]

Here is your asinine argument and tell me what you think. I am just shifting the scope so I hope you can successful follow the logical flow.

There is a small town in Texas who has elected a beer drinking goat as its mayor.
Since this has never happened before, you feel this is animal cruelty since the goat had no say in the matter and proceed to bang pots and pans together saying "This has never happened before therefore we have animal cruelty!"

But since you have been so oblivious of what has been stated on my part, I will spell it out for you. I do not have any prior knowledge (nor am I willing to research such a trite matter) of a low end court ruling on conditional bail that bars the alleged criminal from communicating with their radical political party. What is your point?

Please note: I use the term radical very specifically. Your whole barring from seeing a republican party analogy is nothing more than a straw man argument. You probably didn't know that since you are a child.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Abacab- [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who is this Lexical faggot? All talking about the legal system like he is full partner and shit

if you only knew dweeb.

[Triangle]

Now I am all for civil rights, but here is why what the judge did was acceptable. For a brief summary: this man's rights and my rights/your rights are different. He is a person awaiting trial and you are not. A judge can take away certain rights of his as a condition to his release while awaiting trial. These rights include his right to travel, and in this case his right to associate with certain groups. The rationale behind such decisions is to decrease the risk this man poses to society. For a longer discussion see below:

Didnt read the whole thread but here is why its not a big deal: you do not necessarily have the right to post bail in all cases. In some states, one of those cases is when you pose a significant danger to society. In this case they let the guy go of course, but they didn't have to because an argument could have been made that he was a significant danger to society. So remember, he is only allowed to not be in jail now while awaiting trial by the grace of the judge - keep that in mind.

Secondly, even though he posted bail he is not a free man, and he will be due back in court. there are restrictions such as his not being able to leave the country, or probably even the state. The reasoning behind restricting his communications with anarchists is is a provision to help ensure that he does not pose a significant danger to society, and this reason alone is why such a restriction can be set.

Don't you think restricting his right to leave the state is worse than restricting his right to meet with anarchists?

[EvilMallet]

0/10 h00ts

[Hailto]

Who is that Hiimbadaka faggot?

[EvilMallet]

he's pling and giving us plat+loot to not pk him