144thousand_and_one

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 434 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by 144thousand_and_one

• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  PLMKRZY,

  Nice attempt to misrepresent my earlier post. I won't respond. Apparently, you learned well at the kingdom hall.
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Whether I'm a layman in the law or not is irrelevant. I recommended a book by one of the best LAWYERS in this Country, and you poo-pooed it with your red-herring about my own lack of legal expertise. - - Farkel

  As a person who makes a living in the legal profession, I find your status as a layman to be quite relevant when it comes to assessing the value of your recommendations regarding books to read on legal subjects.

  If you don't want to educate yourself on the FACTS as presented by Bugliosi and instead, condescendly give us your lessons on the US Constitution, that is your choice. - - Farkel

  I wasn't aware that Mr. Bugliosi had all the facts in the OJ case. The State of California could have saved a lot of money if this was known; we could have just had a trial that was limited to testimony by Bugliosi, a lawyer who according to Farkel, is "one of the best LAWYERS in this Country[!]" Why didn't you enlighten us before, Farkel?

  While I do respect Mr. Bugliosi, I don't need to read his book to understand the OJ trial. I watched much of it, and one of my close friends was a law clerk for Judge Ito during the trial. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it and sick of people who disparage our courts over it, as this trial was anything but typical of trials in this state. I was at a luncheon where Christopher Darden spoke and publicly apologized for his unfair criticisms of Judge Ito. We're still waiting to hear from Marcia, who is now a television news commentator in Los Angeles.

  As for your complaint that I am "condescend[ing]," you are hardly the person who ought to complain about that. Your posts reek of your arrogance, and I am only responding to you in kind. Remember, you are the one who initiated the hostile dialogue. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, crybaby!

  This is the last time I will reply to you 144 .- - heathen

  Given the quality of your previous responses, that's probably a good idea.
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  I think fuhrman had good reason to jump the fence .I think cops are allowed to do that, if say they hear a cry for help. -- heathen

  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, heathen, but this is the United States of America, and our government is based on a document known as the Constitution. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and our Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that a search warrant is required before searching private property unless the situation falls within a few, narrowly-defined exceptions. The glove was admitted into evidence via the "exigent circumstances" exception, which is only to be used where the police officer has reasonable basis to believe that a person's life is in imminent danger. "Imminent" has been interpreted to apply when a cop sees someone holding a knife to another's neck, etc.. In the OJ case, there were no real indications of imminent danger to human life. When Furhman jumped that fence, all on his own (where were the other cops?), he did so many hours after the crime had been committed. He could easily have obtained a search warrant; it takes less than an hour. Yet he chose to disregard the 4th Amendment.

  I think it is a total sham that just because a white person uses the N word that some how he is demonized to the point of losing all credibility as a Law enforcement officer. - - heathen

  In addition to using the "N" word multiple times, he lied on the stand and claimed that he didn't. Witnesses can be impeached by demonstrating the falsehood of their testimony as well as demonstrating bias. Here, not only did he lie, but he also used racial slurs, so the jury was correct in disregarding his testimony.

  So, Heathen, you think law enforcement officers that use the "N" word in their speech should be given credibility? Do you wear a hood and robe as well?
• 
  118

  Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i have often wondered if many people would be better off if they stayed witnesses.

  some people i have known have really gone off the deep end after they left the watchtower.

  most all of my family have left now (not due to me as i was cut off from them for years) and many others i know who have left are now bitter atheists or have become pagans and worship stones or new ageers playing with crystals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  144K,

  You don't know shit about shit. Your ramblings don't mean nothin'.

  Furthermore, you havent read "Outrage" as I suggested. Until you do, you are just making it up.

  (Get back to me when you quit talking out of your ass and actually READ something, ie. "Outrage" as I suggested.)

  Farkel

  Any more challenges, Farkel? For those who are interested, you can read the subject thread at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=42642&site=3

  Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 13:43:7
• 
  118

  Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i have often wondered if many people would be better off if they stayed witnesses.

  some people i have known have really gone off the deep end after they left the watchtower.

  most all of my family have left now (not due to me as i was cut off from them for years) and many others i know who have left are now bitter atheists or have become pagans and worship stones or new ageers playing with crystals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Christians in particular, tend to attack the messenger instead of the message. - - Farkel

  I guess that means Farkel is probably a christian.
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Heathen,

  I don't recall making any representations that I am "Sherlock Holmes," but thanks for your clarification. I'm going to assume this statement was included in your post as a lame effort to demonstrate some wit, instead of the initial impression I had that you were attempting to debate using personal attacks.
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Heathen,

  Furhman lied on the stand, and was caught. California jury instructions provide that the jury may discredit the entire testimony of a witness if any portion of his testimony is proven to be false. Additionally, Furhman chose to enter OJ's property all alone, despite the existence of ample time to obtain a search warrant and a lack of real evidence suggesting that someone's life was in imminent danger. I found much of his testimony to be absolutely lacking in credibility, and his justification for violating OJ's 4th Amendment rights sounded like it was being read from a law school hornbook (the "exigent circumstances" exception).
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Farkel,

  I don't need to read books you deem to be relevant as you are a lay person with respect to your knowledge of the law, and your opinion, in addition to being expressed in a rude and entirely inappropriate manner, is absolutely meaningless to me.

  Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 0:29:13
• 
  46

  OJ makes me sick

  by hannibal in

  1. social
  2. physical

  did anyone see oj simpson on espn last night?.

  dan patrick interveiwed that scumbag.dan asked him... .

  ya, so do you still spend money trying to find nicoles killer?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  I thought both verdicts were good verdicts. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is similar to the feeling one gets when they leave the house and wonder if they locked the door or turned the coffee maker off; enough to cause one to return home to check. In the criminal trial, enough police wrongdoing was uncovered to provide reasonable doubt. The apparent tampering with evidence engaged in by the cops provided the reasonable doubt. Among other things, the glove was likely planted; Mark Fuhrman's testimony was so coached it sounded like a law school textbook was being read: "I thought someone's life was in jeopardy in that house." The crime had occurred hours before, and in my opinion, insufficient evidence was presented to justify use of the "exigent circumstances" exception to the search warrant requirement. Judge Ito gave all the breaks to the prosecution, and those Bozos still couldn't convict OJ, notwithstanding the "mountain of evidence" they purported to have on their side. Some here have suggested that the verdict was solely based on Mark Fuhrman's false testimony regarding use of the "n" word, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Mark Fuhrman was a renegade cop who wanted to be a superstar and in my opinion contributed to the demise of the prosecution's case. Marcia Clark's statement shortly after the trial that the verdict was "payback" for Rodney King and other civil rights abuses by the LAPD was an effort to shift the blame for what amounted to a disgraceful showing of prosecutorial incompetence.

  However, I also agree with the verdict in the civil trial. The standard of proof in a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clearly, OJ had motive, and there was a substantial amount of evidence linking him to the crime. I agree that enough evidence was presented to provide at least 51% likelihood that he was the culpable party.

  It is possible OJ didn't do it, despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary. Mr. Simpson's been adjudicated not guilty, and all of us ought to respect the decisions of the courts, regardless of our opinions as to their accuracy. Our system isn't perfect, but it's better than most, and it's the only one we've got. If a guilty man has to walk so as to keep innocent folks free, so be it.

  Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 0:31:57
• 
  16

  What did you get called?

  by Fe2O3Girl in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  tr's expression 'hovah.

  which he picked up from a friend that used to call him that set me thinking about the things that i got called when i was a jw kid.

  one term of abuse was "jew" which is weird and creepy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  "Jew-hovah's Witness" was a name I was frequently called, right before I unleashed the wicked right cross. LOL