skypuppy

if it stemmed from people like you ignoring the law because you don't like it or understand it, yes. Correct me if I am wrong please. But I don't believe I have to give a list of reasons why I vote a certain way on a jury. Does the judge ask jurors to explain why they voted the way they did? You would never be allowed on a jury. You have proven time and again that you have no respect for the law, and can't follow evidence or jury instructions. I read the jury instructions in this case. Nothing in them would have made a guilty vote invalid. Please point out the parts the judge would note were disregarded if the jury would have come back hung or with a conviction. It's pure nonsense to say the judge would just throw out a guilty verdict in this case. The jury could have convicted him, and he would be sitting in jail while his expensive defense team paid for by you guys works on his appeals. That's not what I said. What I said was you would never pass jury selection. Unless you out and out lied during the selection. And even if you did, and got on the jury, your's is only one vote. So a conviction wouldn't have happened, only a hung jury. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear. There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective. And an element of time. And an element of other options available. I find that it is with these later points that there can be a real difference in opinion. Do you have a right to continue a confrontation and have it escalate to deadly force if you had an earlier opportunity to de-escalate or remove yourself from the situation. If you are protecting your life or your stuff, yes. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

if it stemmed from people like you ignoring the law because you don't like it or understand it, yes. Correct me if I am wrong please. But I don't believe I have to give a list of reasons why I vote a certain way on a jury. Does the judge ask jurors to explain why they voted the way they did? You would never be allowed on a jury. You have proven time and again that you have no respect for the law, and can't follow evidence or jury instructions. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You make a ridiculous false equivalency argument comparing gun ownership of that time and country to this. Even without additional gun restrictions, the Jews were fucked. It's not like they were big gun owners anyway.ok. and you know that how? Or are you making generalizations about and profiling Jews now? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'm surprised to see you advocating sharia law. Seems somewhat out of character, but what do I know? The police investigate and decide if the evidence available fits the survivor's story. There might be witnesses, or surveillance video, or forensic evidence that supports the story. Or not. If there is ambiguity, the prosecutor's office, and beyond that the grand jury, decide if charges are warranted. I don't think we would want a system where the police automatically take the word of the person alleging self defense, and don't even bother to investigate. That just opens the door to people being killed just because someone else "felt skeered" for no good reason. The operative criterion is, would a reasonable person have felt their life was endangered in that situation? The best way to answer that is to ask reasonable people, which in most circumstances means a grand jury or a jury in a trial. Locally, we had a case where a couple claimed that they had killed a man who had broken into their house, and claimed self defense. The police were skeptical, though, as the deceased had been stabbed and the body was in the front hallway, but there wasn't much blood. Also the guy had been dead a while before police were called. An investigation revealed a large bloodstain on the sidewalk in front of the house, which someone had tried to wash away with a hose. It turned out the guy came to the house to buy drugs, but when he didn't have enough money he grabbed the drugs and tried to run away. The wife caught up to the guy out front and stabbed him, then she and her husband dragged the body into the house and staged the "home invasion". Both the husband and the wife were on probation after serving time for drug dealing. So, should the police have just taken their word that they were defending themselves? Are you outraged that the police actually checked out their story, and found that it did not hold up? Don hmmm. so let's see. In a recent high-profile case, police investigated and the police and the prosecutor decided there was no case to file charges. Enter media and politicians and a 'special prosecutor', who actually somehow manages to bypass a grand jury, since she wouldn't have been able to get them to issue an indictment due to the lack of evidence of any crime, and we have an innocent man imprisoned and dragged through the courts for over a year over something that wasn't a crime in the first place. So you said all the right things, but then none of them were followed in that case... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

yup... that idiot george (wasn't too smart to get out of his car in the first place) That part is accurate. I don't contend he planned to murder the kid, nor that he planned to get 'beat up'. quote] actually you stated quite clearly you believe Zimmerman chased him down and executed him. maybe you should get your own story straight... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It's his own damm fault for being an idiot who got kicked out of the family home 3 times in the last year for his lifestyle. Oh wait, in that case yes he should of been killed. - It was a lifestyle of breaking the law (drugs and guns) and fighting that got him kicked out. And his first instinct when going to a new home (his father's girlfriend's) is to attack someone else who lived there. Yes, he was attacking someone, possibly could have killed or seriously harmed them, and that person was entitled to defend himself. So yes, he was an idiot who attacked someone and got killed as a result of that... I don't really feel that bad about it. It was his choice to attack GZ. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It's his own damm fault for being an idiot who got kicked out of the family home 3 times in the last year for his lifestyle. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The same way I explain the abused wife who "fell down the stairs" when it comes time to press charges, after she originally calls the cops for the dude beating on her. I have a hard time buying into the story told from the winners POV that's all. Whether you have a hard time buying into it is irrelevant. What you seem to be saying is there's no way to prove it and even if it's true it makes no difference as far as you're concerned, you would still have convicted him of murder. Whereas I have no problem believing it, and if it's true would have done exactly the same thing. For the hundredth time, nothing in the forensic evidence shows GZ 'chasing down' TM. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I don't really believe that that's necessarily racist. I mean here in canada we do have 'kids' who do have children in order to get mother's allowance payments, and the more kids they have, the bigger the cheque they get from the gov't each month. That is simply reality. And I'm not talking about blacks, necessarily, many are white. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think in decent society GZ wouldn't have had any grounds to approach TM in the first place. He was following TM because he was suspect, out of place. I don't want speculate about what finally caused his act self defense or if it was justified. I think the whole thing could have been prevented if GZ had waited for the cops instead approaching TM with some sort of wild west vigilante attitude. Didn't you follow the trial at all?> You seem to have no idea of the facts. GZ did NOT approach TM, he did get out of his truck to follow him at a distance to see where he went. After he lost sight of him he gave up and was returning to his truck when TM doubled back and accosted HIM. And then assaulted him. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

*** We just replaced the wife's honda civic at 450,000 km (the whole car, not the timing belt). Her brother's a mechanic, so he had changed the timing belt at the recommended interval - he said it WOULD trash the motor if it went. The Honda Civics are made in alliston, about 40 minutes drive from here. The new one, essentially the same car but a 2013 instead of a 2006, was actually a few grand cheaper than the old one. Unfortunately they've tightened up the rules on who can buy parts at the plant - I used to have some buddies who could get me parts real cheap, but now they require them to show the serial numbers and ownerships of the cars to buy parts. My other vehicle is a Ford Ranger. I don't consider myself dumb, natalie. But others have wondered... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

A special relationship doesn't mean the parties agree on every little thing. Canada's special relationship with the US will never go away unless our geography changes significantly, which is unlikely. that's frankly not true. There was talk of bringing in a land border crossing fee a few months ago. If something like that comes in, there will be much less border crossing. The Keystone pipeline, if it doesn't go ahead, will result in much more of canada's oil going to china and asian-pacific companies. If that and other products (lumber, etc) are not wanted in the US we will definately find other markets, and the relationship between canada and the us will definately suffer. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Oh, gee, look, the allegations were totally false in the first place. Hard to cautious about not getting into anything when the allegations are lies to begin with, isn't it? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Whatever. I guess the keystone pipeline doesn't mean anything to you, for one example... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This. the special relationship with canada is also on the rails. The question is will it outlast the Obama administration? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It was revealed this week that Mounties battered down more than 1,900 doors in the days following the overflow of the Highwood River. A conservative estimate places the damage caused by door-kicking Mounties at over $3 million, above and beyond the cost of flood damage. Mounties also seized hundreds of firearms that they claimed were “in plain sight,” but which we have since learned were often in locked rooms or cases. In one home, Mounties had to search three times before they found two old, unloaded guns hidden behind boxes in the furnace room in the basement. So much for “plain sight.” As public anger over this gun grab has persisted, Mountie excuse-making has become ever more unbelievable. For instance, participants at Thursday’s town hall, hosted by Danielle Smith, the leader of Alberta’s opposition and the MLA for the High River area, were given a letter from the RCMP’s Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan, commander of all Mounties in Alberta. MORE: Watchdog to release report in December about Mountie gun seizures In his letter, McGowan claimed his officers smashed down nearly 2,000 doors in the name of “protecting private property.” As one resident at the microphone wryly observed, “how is it protecting private property to destroy the doors to 1,900 homes?” Even more incredible is the Mounties’ insistence that guns had to be removed from homes before it was safe to let residents to return to their homes because looters and vandals might take the guns. But that makes no sense whatever. In their zeal to confiscate civilian firearms, Mounties left 1,900 homes (out of about 7,000) wide open to thieves, since it was simply impossible for them to watch over all 1,900 door-less homes as residents poured back in. Officers didn’t take credit cards, jewelry, cash, passports or other valuables -- just guns. So their door-busting rampage actually made homes much more vulnerable to robbery. (Thankfully there was no widespread theft.) Mounties also maximized damage during their spree. Even at homes where it would have been possible to break a window to get at the lock, officers insisted on bashing in the door. This not only causes more damage, it takes more effort and time. It amounts to unreasonable search, something prohibited by the Charter. Not even an emergency justifies police treating private property with such contempt. This wanton destruction also occurred in areas of town untouched by rising waters, so it couldn’t have been solely about locating trapped survivors, as police insist. Despite their continued denials, Mounties must have been targeting guns. Indeed, a National Firearms Association analysis of RCMP video of the search of one home shows officers saying they have “located all the firearms.” Again that is an indication they were deliberately looking for guns, not merely collecting those they casually found in the course of their search for survivors. from sun news. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I thought about posting the source in the original reply, but last few times I posted links I was blasted for not making them clicky - even at times by a mod... The figure are in the first minute or so of this interview - 539 guns were 'confiscated' and so far the rcmp admit to 'voluntarily destroying' 94... http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/redfords-alternative-reality/2649891915001 If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

ok. I thought you'd have to buy 100-yard roll, but I see they sell by the yard. problem solved. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

the lineset is $225. But I only need 2 a lines and 2 b lines, since the lineset on the canopy looks new. Buying the lineset would cost half of what I paid for the canopy. Guess I'll just have to have the new lines made up on my own. That'll mean that the A-lines will probably be white instead of red - but I'll live with that. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

it seems that almost 20% of the guns seized by the rcmp in this incident have been 'voluntarily destroyed'. I wonder how 'voluntarily' that was? The rcmp and the alberta government have to be held to account for this - the investigation must get to the bottom of it. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Behavioral profiling is fine in my book. Posting is a behavior. Is the distinction between behavioral profiling and racial profiling too subtle for you? Just like Zimmerman behaviorally profiled the fact that Trayvon Martin was behaving weirdly 'like he was on drugs or something' - and lo and behold, evidence finds drugs in Trayvon's system... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You do realize you had all the time in the world to write that in your original post; right? This is precisely the problem when people post articles without any comment whatsoever. Other people are going to naturally assume it's their "usual" SC agenda rather than some other point they might be trying to make. I really thought that in the land of the free with a right to free speech, he has every right in the world to make whatever post he wants to the way he wants to do so. It's certainly inappropriate for a MODERATOR to jump all over him for things he didn't say in his post (and here we have 2 MODERATORS jumping on him... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Jumped all over you? This is all I said: If you're going to make a bunch of recent posts about "the blacks", don't act so shocked when people assume you're talking about "the blacks" when you post a story about black people stabbing each other. nothing in the article that I read gave any indication that anyone in it was black or white or yellow or red. That's coming from you. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I guess I could try that, but as I said, the canopy looks like it has just had a new lineset put on (the guy I bought it from doesn't know its history - it came with a rig he bought used and he never used the canopy). If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone