Couple Gets Prison Time for Interrupting Black Childs Birthday Party.

[Tommy Tainant]

Where did you go to law school? Those degrees from Walmart are not real.

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

White Christian terrorists are a real thing. So when these clowns act out their plantation fantasies they have to be given the consideration they deserve.

The likelihood is that they are , like most right wing trash, low education losers who generate more hot air than anything else. They now have time to reflect on their behaviour but, lets be honest, that community is a lot safer with them behind bars.

 

[Correll]

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

That 20 years includes 7 years of probation. And yeah, I could see this turning into a murder case rather quickly given the crazy hatred these people exhibited on their ride around to "promote respect for their flag". (I put that in quotation marks for a reason)

And now we get to the real "crime" in your mind.

THe Flag.

That video doesn't show ANYTHING that supports the blacks' version of events...

BUT it does show a bunch of Confederate Flags on a bunch of pickup trucks.

And that's enough for you to find this couple guilt and to send them to jail for the best part of their lives, depriving their three children of a mother and a father.


Here's a question for you. Do you believe that these people went out on the road with the INTENT of finding a group of blacks to pull over on and terrorize?

No, the flag was never why they went riding around. They harassed black in traffic, at Walmart, and at a gas station before they happened upon the children's birthday party. And, like the punk asshole who killed those church ladies, they found the least dangerous group of blacks they could. Ones at a children's birthday party. They were riding around (7 pickups full of assholes) doing their best to scare n****rs.

Any claims that this is about a flag is a lie. They did not do one thing to promote respect for their flag.

7 trucks, and one gun and you think they pulled on that party to terrorize?

That's an odd plan. Was the one guy the chosen terrorizer and everyone else just moral support?



And why could they NOT have been riding around to show the flag?

Show the flag? While yelling racial slurs at other drivers and at people in a Walmart parking lot? You think they went out to press for respect of their flag by calling people "n****rs"? Really?

Link to the yelling racial slurs please.


And my point on the oddness of the supposed plan to terrorize people, with 7 trucks and one gun stands.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Correll]

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

The prosecutor thought that this case met the legal definition of a terrorist attack. The jury agreed with the prosecutor. Maybe you should offer your legal skills and knowledge to the terrorist for assistance on their appeals.

and everyone knows it's not the objective truth that matters only what can be proven in court
juries are manipulated to make emotional not objective decisions

Ya, the jury got emotional just because some adults on a fun ride waved guns around children at a birthday party while they hollered out racist insults and scared those kids.

or so the party goers claim.

 

[Correll]

Based on the video which was posted to support the black's version of events, which does not.

Based on a number of factors in their story which does not make sense.

Based on the absurd sentence.

These assholes spent the day riding around harassing people out of pure hatred. They did it for no other reason. Then they stopped at a kids party, where they knew no one, and started shit. Then they pulled out guns and threatened innocent people and children. That puts them as low, ignorant, despicable people. I saw no factors that don't make sense. The sentence may be a little harsh. Perhaps it will convince some asshole he shouldn't do this.

1. Your belief that supporting the Confederate Flag equals hatred does not mean that this is the way the truck drives saw it.

2. There was ONE gun, and what? Three trucks with multiple people in each one? That doesn't make sense, if they pulled up with the intent to terrorize.

3. If they were committing such an obvious crime, why did they wait around for the police to show up?

4. And the blacks on that video didn't look very terrified. THey looked ready to commit violence.

5. A LITTLE HARSH? Wow. But maybe it sends a message? That is a miscarriage of justice right there.

1. If you are going to complain about people trying to put words in your mouth, kindly refrain from doing the same to me. I did NOT say the confederate flag equals hatred.

Then you are begging the question, ie assuming that hatred was their motivation and then using that to reach your conclusion that they were terrorizing people.

2. A group of people riding around scaring innocent folks, and then pulling out a shotgun to threaten people at a children's birthday part is terrorism. They intentionally terrorized those people.

YOu didn't answer the question. Why ONE gun with SEVEN trucks? Doesn't that seem odd to you? And in their own trucks with their license plates there for every phone to capture?

3. They are obviously not very bright. And they would not be the first group to think Trump's presidency was a license to prey on minorities.

To stupid to think of running away after committing a crime? Seriously? That is not very likely.

4. If assholes came up to a birthday party my kids were attending, and started calling out slurs and calling people names and ended up pulling a shotgun and threatening to kill people, I would probably be ready to commit violence too. If you say you would not I would probably call you a liar.

Would you really? Or would you pick up your kids and run? NOrmally people are afraid of people with guns who look read to use them.


ON the other hand, some yahoos drive by with Confederate Flags flying, that blacs have been told by lefties equals racist hate, and one of them have a blow out and stops to change the tire.

A portion of the crowd goes over to at least verbally abuse the crackers, if not attack them. The driver calls for help from his buddies who comes back.

ONe of the outnumbers flag wavers pulls a gun and with a voice trembling with fear tells the mob to back off.


THAT is where you get unarmed people who are comfortable with verbally abusing a man with a gun. NOt when he is scary, but when he is obviously scared and you trust that he will NOT use the gun except as a last resort.

1. When a group rides around yelling racial slurs, they are not doing it out of love. Their hatred was documented in the 911 calls received prior to the arrival at the birthday party.

2. The group didn't seem worried about their tag numbers when they were harassing and threatening people on the road, at walmart, or at the gas station. But you think they would worry at the last stop?

3. I don't know why they didn't have sense enough to leave. But when the cops arrived, the man lied about having a shotgun. If he was so innocent and only trying to defend himself, why do that?

4. Indeed I would. Yes, I would make sure that my child was safe. But I would also be ready to defend my family from people who wanted to cause trouble and threatened to kill my family & friends. I don't normally carry at a kid's birthday party. But I would go back to my vehicle and retrieve my gun if someone were threatening us.

1. Link on the 9-11 calls.

2. Actually, all if it makes no sense, as you describe it. 7 truck load of people, if they were really committing crimes, someone would point out that they were certain to get caught.

3. The not leaving is a hole in the story of the party goers. The truck drivers story had them staying because there was a blown tire that they stopped for. That does not make sense if they stopped in order to terrorize the party.

4. Except no one did that. THey confronted the armed person, unarmed, supposedly. That is another hole is the story of the party goers.

 

[Correll]

Are you still pretending to not know about the existence of plea bargains?

Or have you moved on to pretending to not know about coerced confessions?

Let's see evidence the confessions were coerced...

Let's see the evidence that the judge said showed these two were guilty.

Get in touch with the court. It is public record. But to expect someone else to do that to satisfy your mental acrobatics you used to try and show doubt, is simply ridiculous.

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

 

[Faun]

Every act? WTF? Pointing a shotgun at innocent people you do not even know and threatening to kill them all is, by definition, terrorizing people. Had these yahoos just yelled bad words, it would not have been.

brandishing a gun has never been considered a terrorist act
neither has threatening

Where did you go to law school? Those degrees from Walmart are not real.

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

LOLOL

Well there's your opinion and then there's the opinions of the jury and the judge... guess which one matters?

 

[Faun]

Every act? WTF? Pointing a shotgun at innocent people you do not even know and threatening to kill them all is, by definition, terrorizing people. Had these yahoos just yelled bad words, it would not have been.

brandishing a gun has never been considered a terrorist act
neither has threatening

They didn't merely brandish a gun. They loaded it and threatened to kill kids at an 8 year old's birthday party. And keep in mind, this occurred on the heels of Dylan Roof's act of terrorism.

Roof committed mass murder
or is every murder now also a terrorist act?

No one need be killed in order for an act to be considered terrorism. And no, not every threat is terrorism. This one, with racists tormenting folks because they're black, qualified according to a jury of the racists' peers.

yeah a jury

a verdict based on emotion not objectivity

Says you, but they got to see all of the evidence while all you can do is speculate.

 

[Faun]

Where did you go to law school? Those degrees from Walmart are not real.

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

Too ******* retarded. Since it's clearly terrorism if someone runs over people while crying, 'Allah akbar;' your claim is like saying it would be terrorism then if any driver ran over people.

When in fact, motive makes the difference, whether you're running people over with a vehicle or threatening to blow them away with a shotgun.

 

[Faun]

Let's see evidence the confessions were coerced...

Let's see the evidence that the judge said showed these two were guilty.

Get in touch with the court. It is public record. But to expect someone else to do that to satisfy your mental acrobatics you used to try and show doubt, is simply ridiculous.

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

The prosecutor thought that this case met the legal definition of a terrorist attack. The jury agreed with the prosecutor. Maybe you should offer your legal skills and knowledge to the terrorist for assistance on their appeals.

and everyone knows it's not the objective truth that matters only what can be proven in court
juries are manipulated to make emotional not objective decisions

Ya, the jury got emotional just because some adults on a fun ride waved guns around children at a birthday party while they hollered out racist insults and scared those kids.

still not terrorism

 

[Skull Pilot]

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

Too ******* retarded. Since it's clearly terrorism if someone runs over people while crying, 'Allah akbar;' your claim is like saying it would be terrorism then if any driver ran over people.

When in fact, motive makes the difference, whether you're running people over with a vehicle or threatening to blow them away with a shotgun.

I never claimed simply shouting allah whatever was terrorism BTW it's not

 

[Skull Pilot]

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

Too ******* retarded. Since it's clearly terrorism if someone runs over people while crying, 'Allah akbar;' your claim is like saying it would be terrorism then if any driver ran over people.

When in fact, motive makes the difference, whether you're running people over with a vehicle or threatening to blow them away with a shotgun.

Motive isn't that important. I don't care why someone commits a crime if it can be proven they committed it

 

[Skull Pilot]

unlike you I looked up the average sentences for brandishing and threatening

and even if added together the maximums come no where near a 20 year sentence

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

White Christian terrorists are a real thing. So when these clowns act out their plantation fantasies they have to be given the consideration they deserve.

The likelihood is that they are , like most right wing trash, low education losers who generate more hot air than anything else. They now have time to reflect on their behaviour but, lets be honest, that community is a lot safer with them behind bars.

yeah now everything is terrorism

10 years ago this would have been a case of threatening and brandishing a weapon which is all it really was

 

[Correll]

Let's see the evidence that the judge said showed these two were guilty.

Get in touch with the court. It is public record. But to expect someone else to do that to satisfy your mental acrobatics you used to try and show doubt, is simply ridiculous.

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

What evidence are you arguing on? The video that shows nothing? The evidence that the confession was NOT part of plea bargain or recommended by a lawyer as a way to get less time?


YOu are arguing on your desire to see people that you ASSUME are bad people, because Confederate Flag, to be punished.


NONE of the "evidence" claimed has been presented.

 

[Faun]

Great, now factor in the average sentence for terrorism.

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

Too ******* retarded. Since it's clearly terrorism if someone runs over people while crying, 'Allah akbar;' your claim is like saying it would be terrorism then if any driver ran over people.

When in fact, motive makes the difference, whether you're running people over with a vehicle or threatening to blow them away with a shotgun.

Motive isn't that important. I don't care why someone commits a crime if it can be proven they committed it

Ok, we're done. Motive defines if an act is terrorism. Once you start arguing nonsense like that, there is no point in continuing. You're clearly eager to adopt any position to advance your idiocy, no matter how stupid.

 

[Faun]

Get in touch with the court. It is public record. But to expect someone else to do that to satisfy your mental acrobatics you used to try and show doubt, is simply ridiculous.

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

What evidence are you arguing on? The video that shows nothing? The evidence that the confession was NOT part of plea bargain or recommended by a lawyer as a way to get less time?


YOu are arguing on your desire to see people that you ASSUME are bad people, because Confederate Flag, to be punished.


NONE of the "evidence" claimed has been presented.

The evidence presented at trial. You don't know what it is. Some here have mentioned some of the evidence and you challenged them for a link because you didn't know it was evidence.

 

[Correll]

Have you been living in the same world I have?

In this world over here, you can't stop people from posting shit that supports their story.

I think all they have is the video that was posted and that in no way supports the case against the couple.


TWENTY YEARS?! That's a sentence one would expect for MURDER! There was not a single injury!

This case looks like like a massive injustice.

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

What evidence are you arguing on? The video that shows nothing? The evidence that the confession was NOT part of plea bargain or recommended by a lawyer as a way to get less time?


YOu are arguing on your desire to see people that you ASSUME are bad people, because Confederate Flag, to be punished.


NONE of the "evidence" claimed has been presented.

The evidence presented at trial. You don't know what it is. Some here have mentioned some of the evidence and you challenged them for a link because you didn't know it was evidence.

All I know is what has been reported in the media.

A story that does not ring true, with several holes, evidence that has been referred to, but either has not been presented or does not show, at all, what it was claimed to show.

And a sentence for a threat that more what one would expect for an actual murder.


Thus, I am very doubtful about this verdict.

But you lefties, are fine with it, because Flag.

 

[Faun]

Since you haven't seen all of the evidence presented to the jury, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

What evidence are you arguing on? The video that shows nothing? The evidence that the confession was NOT part of plea bargain or recommended by a lawyer as a way to get less time?


YOu are arguing on your desire to see people that you ASSUME are bad people, because Confederate Flag, to be punished.


NONE of the "evidence" claimed has been presented.

The evidence presented at trial. You don't know what it is. Some here have mentioned some of the evidence and you challenged them for a link because you didn't know it was evidence.

All I know is what has been reported in the media.

A story that does not ring true, with several holes, evidence that has been referred to, but either has not been presented or does not show, at all, what it was claimed to show.

And a sentence for a threat that more what one would expect for an actual murder.


Thus, I am very doubtful about this verdict.

But you lefties, are fine with it, because Flag.

No, I'm fine with it because I believe the charges and indictments are fair. I base that off of some of the defendants admitting guilt, not the flag.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it wasn't terrorism

They were convicted of making terrorist threats. Period.

so what?

It wasn't terrorism if it was then every threat and every instance of brandishing a weapon are also terrorist acts which they aren't

Too ******* retarded. Since it's clearly terrorism if someone runs over people while crying, 'Allah akbar;' your claim is like saying it would be terrorism then if any driver ran over people.

When in fact, motive makes the difference, whether you're running people over with a vehicle or threatening to blow them away with a shotgun.

Motive isn't that important. I don't care why someone commits a crime if it can be proven they committed it

Ok, we're done. Motive defines if an act is terrorism. Once you start arguing nonsense like that, there is no point in continuing. You're clearly eager to adopt any position to advance your idiocy, no matter how stupid.

and you clearly are an emotional thinker

 

[Correll]

That's very fair, I remember the way you used to ALWAYS drop in on threads about the Zimmerman case and make that same point, and how your fellow lefties would viciously attack you and you would refuse to back off your principled stand.

The key difference, of course, was that I was arguing based on the available evidence, while you're arguing with knowing almost none of the evidence.

What evidence are you arguing on? The video that shows nothing? The evidence that the confession was NOT part of plea bargain or recommended by a lawyer as a way to get less time?


YOu are arguing on your desire to see people that you ASSUME are bad people, because Confederate Flag, to be punished.


NONE of the "evidence" claimed has been presented.

The evidence presented at trial. You don't know what it is. Some here have mentioned some of the evidence and you challenged them for a link because you didn't know it was evidence.

All I know is what has been reported in the media.

A story that does not ring true, with several holes, evidence that has been referred to, but either has not been presented or does not show, at all, what it was claimed to show.

And a sentence for a threat that more what one would expect for an actual murder.


Thus, I am very doubtful about this verdict.

But you lefties, are fine with it, because Flag.

No, I'm fine with it because I believe the charges and indictments are fair. I base that off of some of the defendants admitting guilt, not the flag.

Got it, you don't care about the holes in the story or the lack of evidence, because people facing decades in prison said something that gives you an excuse to support this.