Pot-kettle-black MR. Try following your own advice and refrain from making ridiculous comments. I'm not the only one that sees those chinks in your armor.
Had Court this morning...
- Thread starter Caneatic
- Start date
Pot-kettle-black MR. Try following your own advice and refrain from making ridiculous comments. I'm not the only one that sees those chinks in your armor.
So basically, you've got nothing. Why am I not surprised?
Who didn't see this coming? LOL.
"ooo Guerilla, a bunch of us passive aggressive betas are talking in the shadows about how you're a bad person and we think you're wrong, and like, really really bad and mean and stuff. Waaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah"
Wrong again, and why did you just delete those comments?
I'll refresh your memory. 'IF I SAW A CHINK IN YOUR ARMOR I WOULD STAB YOU WITH A KNIFE'
Good grief, no wonder you retracted that, but I saw it. I'll leave it there if that's what you consider debating with logic.
Actually, what I wrote is,
if you saw a chink in my armor, you would have stabbed me to death.
You don't see chinks in my armor, because you've got no argument. You've got nothing. You have presented exactly ZERO facts.
It's funny you would claim I threatened you with violence, when everyone here knows I am all about non-aggression.
I guess since you can't win the argument, it's better to lie?
Ok, I'll accept that's what you said. Not much better is it? It's a typical guerilla big assumption and again is wrong. I'm not hating here. Condescend all you like, it's what you're best at. You can have the last say, I've made the point I wanted to make and as usual you are being your normal argumentative self when called out making a lame comment. Go on, have your say, get those gums a flappin.
Edit; Is that the third time you edited that post? Why is that? Thought process problem?
FWIW, I did not refer to you stabbing me. Stop twisting things to suit your weak rebuttal.
You're still attacking me personally, without making a single point to prove your argument.
Weak stuff.
Do you think you can make your ignorant up-thread comments correct by pointing out I am a big meanie?
You haven't proven any of my comments lame. On the contrary, I was able to further substantiate my position.
And you? Looking sort of like an idiot, amirite?
Weak stuff.
Do you think you can make your ignorant up-thread comments correct by pointing out I am a big meanie?
You haven't proven any of my comments lame. On the contrary, I was able to further substantiate my position.
And you? Looking sort of like an idiot, amirite?
I've got a trial scheduled next month for a speeding ticket. I am sort of looking forward to making a mockery of the system.
It will also be nice when they send me back the $500 I had to post at my arraignment. I'm sure they'll do it right away.
It will also be nice when they send me back the $500 I had to post at my arraignment. I'm sure they'll do it right away.
Best of luck to you sir. I hope the cop doesn't show so it is quick and easy for ya!
Will you be using a Marc Stevens defense or just a regular defense (speed survey, radar gun, etc)?
If you guys knew me at all you would know that is a decision I will be making the night before the trial while feverishly Googling!
Actually I have a friend who is an attorney who offered to represent me as a favor, but I don't think I'm going to waste that favor on this. I've already done all the postponing that you're supposed to do (incident was like a year ago). I'm also planning on going to request another extension shortly before the trial just on the off-chance that the cop was actually planning on showing up. He was really old. I wouldn't be surprised if he retired since then.
Also, I Googled this "Marc Stevens" defense and didn't find anything substantial. What is it?
You can find his site here:
MarcStevens.net | No product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun
I'll defer to Guerilla for an explanation of the method.
MarcStevens.net | No product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun
I'll defer to Guerilla for an explanation of the method.
Basically, you get the judge to admit that
1. The cop can't testify because it requires the formation of a legal opinion, which he is not qualified to do.
2. The court doesn't have jurisdiction because it presumes innocence, and thus can't presume jurisdiction without already having reached a conclusion about guilt
3. There was no harm to anyone, and the state isn't a proxy for a person.
It's a bit complicated unless you're willing to put some work into it and if you're googling the night before, it's probably not your best defense.
1. The cop can't testify because it requires the formation of a legal opinion, which he is not qualified to do.
2. The court doesn't have jurisdiction because it presumes innocence, and thus can't presume jurisdiction without already having reached a conclusion about guilt
3. There was no harm to anyone, and the state isn't a proxy for a person.
It's a bit complicated unless you're willing to put some work into it and if you're googling the night before, it's probably not your best defense.
corpus delicti doesn't mean that it requires a victim. corpus delicti requires that a body of proof of the crime be presented. in a murder case you could take it literally and the body, or victim, would be the proof of the crime. In a traffic violation where the infraction was witnessed by the cop, and most likely recorded, or caught in a red light cam, these would be sufficient body of proof of a crime and satisfy corpus delicti.
The victim in this case would be the people. the people who could be injured or killed by reckless driving. If you pull a gun on someone and pull the trigger only to have it jam you aren't just let free you are still charged with a crime even though there is no body.
There are two elements of a crime.
1. Injury, loss or harm.
2. Causality.
You need both to have Corpus Delecti.
Obviously, a speeding ticket can't satisfy point 1.
I am not an expert on homicide or attempted homicide, but I do feel pretty competent on traffic violations.
I am guessing in this case, pulling the trigger on a jammed gun is still aggression, which constitutes harm.
But again, you'd need a specific person the gun was aimed and fired at to have a victim. Someone to whom the harm was done.
