|
flamebait resume advice (pg. 100)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
By virtue of everything you've posted in this thread, you've already lost the case. Internet posting is admissible and, presuming you're going to present as a witness, opposing counsel has more than enough leads and ammunition, in this thread alone, to utterly destroy you, on the stand.
You don't stand a chance, unless you can get this thread deleted. |
Eddie lay off the drugs. What case are you refering to? |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Heīs already lost the case and had his request for appeal denied. And they didnīt need pages of internet babbling to soundly defeat him in court (lol and he represented himself, can you imagine it?). |
The case wasn't lost. However I am waiting on the people who perjured to come clean. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Heīs already lost the case and had his request for appeal denied. And they didnīt need pages of internet babbling to soundly defeat him in court (lol and he represented himself, can you imagine it?). |
I can imagine it. Voir Dire, if he selected trial by jury, must have been a laugh riot. I just can't imagine him ever having the focus to mount a successfully organized defense and the way he continually misuses the Latin is the stuff of comedy. It would make a great movie.
A Few Good Men vs. Napoleon Dynomite vs. Girl Interrupted. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I can imagine it. Voir Dire, if he selected trial by jury, must have been a laugh riot. |
Only specific offences are eligible for Jury of which this one was not, as it was only a summary charge.
| quote: | | I just can't imagine him ever having the focus to mount a successfully organized defense and the way he continually misuses the Latin is the stuff of comedy. It would make a great movie. |
I had a defence prepared, unfortunately I wasn't allowed to present it. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Really or maybe the government should just prohibit toys that cause hearing loss? |
Then the government should prohibit baseball bats, because kids could die from being hit by one. Or maybe they should prohibit skateboards, because kids can fall and crack their head open or break a bone. Or maybe they should prohibit pretty much everything that exists, because all things if used improperly can potentially cause harm to someone.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Fact is he asked neither of us knew of the outcome. She has no place to blame me for something her child asked me to do when I was a kid. It is absurd. |
I agreed with you on this point. She should have placed the blame on your parents for not teaching you how to properly use the toy.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
The kid put himself at risk all by himself. He counselled me to do it. I wasn't going to and asked him if he was sure. He confirmed it. Firing a cap gun isn't against the law, it was invited, no illegality occurred on my part. You are messed in the head for even suggesting that if a kid invites me to punch him in the head and I say are you sure. That if he gets hurt as a result I am at fault if we are both minors, or my parents are at fault. The fact is that the kid invited the action. Assault only applied to uninvited contact. There was no prohibition at all in what occurred. The kid was stupid because he didn't know any better, much the same as myself. Blaming my parents just doesn't work here. It is something that was openly sold and usable in public. No crime occured, much like when people go out to a club and expose themselves willingly to over 100 dB's of sound damaging their hearing, no crime is being committed. No fault re: culpability existed in myself as niether of the people involved had knowledge of potential harm nor intent to cause harm. |
Speaking of absurd. There is no question of whether what you did was illegal or not and I never suggested otherwise. Obviously it wasn't illegal and obviously it would have been an accident because you didn't know of the risks (which is the fault of your parents). If a kid who doesn't know what will happen if he gets bashed over the head with a baseball bat, but asks to be hit with a baseball bat, can you blame him for getting hurt? He obviously didn't know. Or maybe a better example is if a kid ate a mushroom off the ground that you passed over to him because neither of you knew it would poison him, is it his fault that he is poisoned? The blame does not fall on the child because of the fact that he is in fact a child, who does not know. The blame would fall onto the parents who are obligated to inform their children of risks related to the toys that they buy for them, or whatever.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
He invited it, in his case that is the point of mea culpa. |
Again, this is ridiculous. You cannot hold a child culpable of something when they do not know the risks and are incapable of reasonably determining the risks on their own.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Cap guns were sold to the public anyone could of bought one, he himself could have bought one. Why the hell would the government allow a kids toy that causes people to go deaf to be sold? |
I am pretty sure that those guns had written warnings on them, which were to be read. If you were old enough to buy the toy on your own, then you likely are old enough to read the warnings. If it was bought for you, it is the responsibility of the person who purchased it for you to advise you of those warnings, in your case, your parents.
The question of whether it was assault or whatever, is not even up for debate. I am not arguing that, and I already said that I don't think his mother should have blamed you. I am saying that neither you nor the other child were at fault. It was the fault of your parents for providing you with a toy and not teaching you how to use it safely.
This all of course is under the assumption that you were little enough that you were unable to go to the store on your own and buy the thing or young enough that you were unable to read the warnings provided. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Only specific offences are eligible for Jury of which this one was not, as it was only a summary charge.
I had a defence prepared, unfortunately I wasn't allowed to present it. |
Sane enough to stand trial but too inane to mount a defense, huh?
No. It wasn't a typo. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
want
 |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Sane enough to stand trial but too inane to mount a defense, huh?
No. It wasn't a typo. |
My sanity wasn't in doubt during the trial. The prosecution would not let me read from my prepared defence while presenting myself on the stand, only allow me to present the events. I had many pages prepared. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
My sanity wasn't in doubt during the trial. The prosecution would not let me read from my prepared defence while presenting myself on the stand, only allow me to present the events. I had about many pages prepared. |
That's because you're only allowed to present actual evidence in a court of law - not hypergraphia fueled conjecture.
The prosecutor was doing you a favor - you only would have made things worse. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
That's because you're only allowed to present actual evidence in a court of law - not hypergraphia fueled conjecture.
|
Witness statements are real evidence.
Especially when they contradict statements made by those who gave evidence in court and the information was contradictory.
Also barring me from obtaining material evidence also isn't exactly good practice to provide for a fair trial. |
|
|
|
|
