Merged Gary Talis found innocent.

[Justin39640]

has a jury found them guilty of perjury?

in gal's mind they did
it must be nice to have no variables to clutter your thoughts

just yes or no, with not an ounce of maybe
black or white with no hint of gray

one time as i used a laser pointer to drive my sisters cat nuts i made a comment to her friend "ah, the fun you can have with a yes/no brain"
these forums help to continue that sort of entertainment lol

 

[defaultdotxbe]

in gal's mind they did
it must be nice to have no variables to clutter your thoughts

just yes or no, with not an ounce of maybe
black or white with no hint of gray

one time as i used a laser pointer to drive my sisters cat nuts i made a comment to her friend "ah, the fun you can have with a yes/no brain"
these forums help to continue that sort of entertainment lol

i was thinking its amusing how easily the hypocrisy and double standards of CTers (especially truthers) are revealed

previously galileo defended gary talis's right to a presumption of innocence, the same right he now denies those who testified against him

 

[Justin39640]

i was thinking its amusing how easily the hypocrisy and double standards of CTers (especially truthers) are revealed

previously galileo defended gary talis's right to a presumption of innocence, the same right he now denies those who testified against him

well their comments are always unbiased and thought out...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

in gal's mind they did

I'm sure Galileo feels that the losing side in any trial should be thrown in jail for lying under oath. Because if they lost, they weren't telling the truth... obviously.

 

[Donal]

I figure the not guilty verdict came one of two ways:

1) The prosecutor over reached in what s/he was charging Talis with. Maybe he tried painting him as some ticking time bomb raging sociopath or the likes and was looking for too harsh a sentence. The jury simply couldn't get there. A lesser charge might have worked.

2) Not guilty by mental defect

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I figure the not guilty verdict came one of two ways:

1) The prosecutor over reached in what s/he was charging Talis with. Maybe he tried painting him as some ticking time bomb raging sociopath or the likes and was looking for too harsh a sentence. The jury simply couldn't get there. A lesser charge might have worked.

2) Not guilty by mental defect

3) because there were so many witnesses testifying (5 or 6 it seems) to such a brief event any inconsistency in their testimony could generate reasonable doubt

 

[Galileo]

Galileo... if you ever get called in for jury selection make every effort you can to not get chosen. All their verdict indicates is that the evidence the prosecution provided them was in dispute and thereby insufficient to cast reasonable doubt upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It does not reflect whether or not the witness -- some or all -- were lying under oath.

The witnesses lied about what Talis did. For the protection of society, they should be thrown into prison.

 

[Galileo]

has a jury found them guilty of perjury?

Yes, the jury determined that they lied bout material facts at the trial.

 

[Galileo]

i was thinking its amusing how easily the hypocrisy and double standards of CTers (especially truthers) are revealed

previously galileo defended gary talis's right to a presumption of innocence, the same right he now denies those who testified against him

The jury already made the decision.

 

[Donal]

Yes, the jury determined that they lied bout material facts at the trial.

No, the jury determined that the facts did not support the prosecution's case.

 

[leftysergeant]

The witnesses lied about what Talis did. For the protection of society, they should be thrown into prison.

Absolutely indefensible statement. They more likely reported how they percieved what happened. They may have mispercieved some of it.

What they clearly did not mispercieve, based on the video that the WACers posted to YouTube, is that he was acting like an idiot and a mad man. He is one scary and offensive little snot. If you frighten somebody intentionally, it is your own fault if they assume an even worse design on your part and take an inappropriate action.

The police and Secret Service had already had contact with the creep earlier, and he was acting in a way that he had been told was inappropriate. He was, in simple fact, looking for an opportunity to cause trouble and discomfiture.

Too bad it back-fired on him. He asked for everything he got. He is mentally unwell, and enjoys any attention and, being an utter sociopath, doesn't even care whether itb is approving or hostile attention.

He is not a victim, nor are his accusers perpetrators of a crime.

Grow up.

 

[Galileo]

No, the jury determined that the facts did not support the prosecution's case.

The testimony in favor of the prosecutions case was found to be false. Those who the jury determined to have uttered the false accusations should be thrown into prison and waterboarded.

THE GREAT KING HAMMURABI

If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3
If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

 

[Galileo]

Absolutely indefensible statement. They more likely reported how they percieved what happened. They may have mispercieved some of it.

What they clearly did not mispercieve, based on the video that the WACers posted to YouTube, is that he was acting like an idiot and a mad man. He is one scary and offensive little snot. If you frighten somebody intentionally, it is your own fault if they assume an even worse design on your part and take an inappropriate action.

The police and Secret Service had already had contact with the creep earlier, and he was acting in a way that he had been told was inappropriate. He was, in simple fact, looking for an opportunity to cause trouble and discomfiture.

Too bad it back-fired on him. He asked for everything he got. He is mentally unwell, and enjoys any attention and, being an utter sociopath, doesn't even care whether itb is approving or hostile attention.

He is not a victim, nor are his accusers perpetrators of a crime.

Grow up.

Wrong. When you make serious allegations against another, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to prove your allegations.

I am in agreement with Hammurabi that those who make false accusations should have their mouth cut out, to protect society from further harm.

They should also reimburse the state for court costs.

 

[Donal]

The testimony in favor of the prosecutions case was found to be false.

No. The jury simply said that they do not believe the prosecution made its case.

Those who the jury determined to have uttered the false accusations should be thrown into prison and waterboarded.

We have a perjury charge. The District Attorney does not seem to think the witnesses warrant such a charge.

I have no idea where you get waterboarding.

THE GREAT KING HAMMURABI



http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

You know it is presently 2009, right?

 

[T.A.M.]

That is a racist statement.

Not really, but the two last posts you made contain direct insults towards other posters, do behave.



I had never heard of this Fitzgerald fella, but now that I googled him I am pretty shocked. The guys father who he killed had called Alex Jones and I remember listening to it, the other nuts have been involved in 9/11 truth but this guy looks like to have been an actual Alex Jones supporter.

1. Please explain to me how it is a racist statement?
2. I will do as I please, so long as it conforms to the membership agreement and rules of the forum.
3. Your defense of Talis seems quite appropriate now, given the impression you are leaving here is that of a punk just like him.

TAM

edit:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ilk

 

[Galileo]

No. The jury simply said that they do not believe the prosecution made its case.



We have a perjury charge. The District Attorney does not seem to think the witnesses warrant such a charge.

I have no idea where you get waterboarding.


You know it is presently 2009, right?

The District Attorney is a criminal as well. He made false accusations against an innocent man. He should be water-boarded and sent to Gitmo.

 

[Fnord]

You are presumed innocent, until proven guilty in a court of criminal law.

This would imply that it takes a conviction of guilt in a court of law to remove the presumption that you are innocent. This would seem to be the ideal case.

.

Why would this be the ideal case?

Don't get me wrong: I think that the rule of law, and courts of law established to uphold that rule, are excellent things, and a vital component of any civilized society.

.
Because in the real world we have these things called "Mass Media" and "Public Opinion" that respond like sharks and piranha do to the scent of blood whenever there is even the slightest suspicion that a person is guilty of a heinous crime. Trial by Media never seems to assume innocence unless the alleged perpetrator happens to be young, female, white, and/or a suicide. By this "logic" an adult male "of color" that is also a person of interest in a murder (esp., if of a young, white female...) may as well be drawn and quartered once public opinion turns against him.

In an ideal world public opinion would follow the whole "Innocent until proven guilty..." until a conviction is made. But that isn't always the case.

Although sometimes it does seem that a trial is a mere formality along the way to the execution chamber.

 

[kookbreaker]

The District Attorney is a criminal as well. He made false accusations against an innocent man. He should be water-boarded and sent to Gitmo.

I have now put Galileo on ignore. I hadn't been replying to him as it was, but there is no point in entertaining this trollery any more, not even to read.

The rest of you, knock it off. Stop giving him attention.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The testimony in favor of the prosecutions case was found to be false. Those who the jury determined to have uttered the false accusations should be thrown into prison and waterboarded.

THE GREAT KING HAMMURABI

If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

so they should have thrown talis in a river?

 

[bill smith]

I figure the not guilty verdict came one of two ways:

1) The prosecutor over reached in what s/he was charging Talis with. Maybe he tried painting him as some ticking time bomb raging sociopath or the likes and was looking for too harsh a sentence. The jury simply couldn't get there. A lesser charge might have worked.

2) Not guilty by mental defect

3) Not guilty verdist found by a jury of his peers based on a full evaluation of the available evidence by trial. Aquitted under the watchful eye of the Constitution of the USA..