Protesters Tear Down Confederate Statue

[Hawkeye10]

One man's meat is another man's poison.

Followed by a bag of popped corn over there.

So there, I can fire off hit and run posts too when I decide to do it, which is rare indeed. No problem thx.

Notice how I can manage to make several important points while I am having fun, while you unfortunately can not.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I am really happy that it is looking like there will be no hurricanes chasing away your wit from DP this year.

60% chance of a below normal season this year NOAA says, and it has been very quiet so far.

Has Global Warming been cancelled?

:2wave:

#poundMeToo! I can live without that. A Hurricane touched meToo#

 

[Slingshot Bob]

The nation needs a second reconstruction post Putin-Trump. No Mr. Nice Guy about it either. We need to correct and finalize the failure of the post civil war reconstruction that led to the present predicament. End this rightwing crap once and for all.

You need help seeing whats going on.

 

[Tangmo]

You need help seeing whats going on.

I think of Trump as Slingsh*t Trump.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I think of Trump as Slingsh*t Trump.

Well bless your little heart! (know what that is southern code for)?

 

[HowardBThiname]

It may be a crime, but it was a damned good crime to commit. It's right up there with mother shoots man who raped her son.

Not even close.

And the mother is ONLY justified in shooting the man IF he is presently raping her son. She's not justified in shooting him after the fact, such as when he walks out of the courtroom a free man on a technicality.

When you condone destruction and vandalism, you are no better than the ones who do it. Interestingly, it's typically the cult-minded and extremist folks who take that route -- like ISIS that destroyed every ancient statue and symbol they came across that didn't fit in their mindset. People who think along those lines are dangerous folks and bear close watching.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Criminals have been proven guilty of a crime in court. It just sounds like you're slandering them, and that's why you off angry

You're confusing "slander" (the spoken word) with "libel" (the written word), and you're also wrong about the definition of "criminal," which is simply someone who "commits a crime." Conviction isn't a requirement, although it can be a verification.

You keep saying "angry" and that can only be because this situation angers you and you expect others to be angry as well, but perhaps if you take a step back and look at the big picture, you'll understand that vandalism of property that does not belong to you is considered to be a crime in the US, and the university has stated that they're looking into the "vandalism."

Don't let your emotions get the best of you.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Negligence is a matter of law too.

My position is to let the courts handle the legal aspect of this. You're trying to argue that this is cut and dry, and calling people criminals already. It's not cut and dry. Both sides can hire a lawyer to defend their rights, and argue their case.

We have videos of the event. That's pretty cut and dried. It happened. It was a crime.

What the students will be charged with (or if they're even charged) is a totally different subject.

 

[calamity]

Not even close.

And the mother is ONLY justified in shooting the man IF he is presently raping her son. She's not justified in shooting him after the fact, such as when he walks out of the courtroom a free man on a technicality.

When you condone destruction and vandalism, you are no better than the ones who do it. Interestingly, it's typically the cult-minded and extremist folks who take that route -- like ISIS that destroyed every ancient statue and symbol they came across that didn't fit in their mindset. People who think along those lines are dangerous folks and bear close watching.

It's a statue commemorating White Supremacy and preservation of slavery. Think about that for a minute.

 

[calamity]

The nation needs a second reconstruction post Putin-Trump. No Mr. Nice Guy about it either. We need to correct and finalize the failure of the post civil war reconstruction that led to the present predicament. End this rightwing crap once and for all.

That ship has sailed.

 

[Athanasius68]

It's a statue commemorating White Supremacy and preservation of slavery. Think about that for a minute.

Its a statue commemorating a bunch of UNC graduates who fought and died in a Civil War.

 

[HowardBThiname]

It's a statue commemorating White Supremacy and preservation of slavery. Think about that for a minute.

It makes absolutely no difference. A statue that commemorates white supremacy - or a statue of Donald Duck, when on private property (which the University is) cannot be destroyed without committing a crime. That's why the act is called vandalism. Vandalism is a crime. I don't like the idea of the statue being there, but the kids who toppled it are criminals and should be held accountable.

You act as if we live in a lawless Middle Eastern country whereby rioters and hooligans can take the law into their own hands whenever they so choose. But we don't. We live in the US, a nation of laws. If someone wants a statue removed, there are legal avenues they can pursue.

There is no justification for what those kids did. It wasn't right under any stretch of the imagination.

 

[HowardBThiname]

It's a statue commemorating White Supremacy and preservation of slavery. Think about that for a minute.

If you think the vandals will get away with it -- think again.

The gal who threw paint and blood on the statue earlier this year was charged with a "university infraction" as well as charged with a crime in criminal court.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article213187589.html

No matter how badly you don't like something -- you don't have the right to take the law into your own hands.

 

[calamity]

If you think the vandals will get away with it -- think again.

The gal who threw paint and blood on the statue earlier this year was charged with a "university infraction" as well as charged with a crime in criminal court.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article213187589.html

No matter how badly you don't like something -- you don't have the right to take the law into your own hands.

Justified StatueCide.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Justified StatueCide.

The law, and intelligent people, disagree with you.

 

[Tangmo]

Notice how I can manage to make several important points while I am having fun, while you unfortunately can not.

I'm having a grand time thx. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I owe a lot of it to you. I luvit when you decide to swoop in and saturate a thread. What is for you saturation anyway. I'm always awestruck by how you can get several points into several words in yet another hit and run post. I try always to read between your lines but I find only the obvious, i.e., white space. I also like names such as for example The Falcon and the Snowman, Braveheart, Hawkeye and Hot Lips (and Frank). opcorn:

But alas our concern attends to the statue of the racist white North Carolina traitors who fought for the Confederacy. And their descendants who have descended into the abyss of Trump and of being Russophiles who want to make the USA more like Putin's Russia than the other way around. Guys led by a crackpot loudmouth boor. There's just no changing any of 'em which means getting out the broom and sweeping the place clean. Because while the civil war made a mess all reconstruction did was put 'em back together again and make 'em worse down there.

 

[SheWolf]

You said you didn't think anyone should be charged. By not charging anyone you are giving those whom broke the law a free pass.

When I look at the evidence, I don't think the book should be thrown at them. The university could be really nasty. Expel people, ban the student associates from campus, etc. All things considered, I just don't find myself angered or wanting harsh punishment. But that's not saying that laws don't matter, or people get a free pass to break them. Our laws and legal punishments are also applied case by case, so I am not advocating that we respond in a special way for these people.

 

[Fishking]

This isn't a matter of somebody destroying something of mine or yours, because they don't like what it stood for. The monument was not erected recently. It was erected in 1913, over 100 years ago. Not only are the people dead, but American society no longer thinks it's acceptable to own slaves and beat them like those men did. Nobody in modern society holds such beliefs represented by Silent Sam, so, again, nobody was insulted by the destruction of Silent Sam.

NOBODY WAS VICTIMIZED

You keep trying to act like somebody, some where, was victimized by what happened, and it's really hard for to accept that POV as serious or deserving respect.

The only point that needs to be made, is that the protestors broke laws relating to vandalism and/or destruction of property. But to act like somebody was hurt or victimized is not an argument I will entertain.

Who's going to pay to have it cleaned up? I guess that doesn't matter to you. And, as you say, people don't support this type of thing anymore so it really shouldn't have been difficult to have it taken down legally.

 

[SheWolf]

You're confusing "slander" (the spoken word) with "libel" (the written word), and you're also wrong about the definition of "criminal," which is simply someone who "commits a crime." Conviction isn't a requirement, although it can be a verification.

You keep saying "angry" and that can only be because this situation angers you and you expect others to be angry as well, but perhaps if you take a step back and look at the big picture, you'll understand that vandalism of property that does not belong to you is considered to be a crime in the US, and the university has stated that they're looking into the "vandalism."

Don't let your emotions get the best of you.

I have have taken law classes in college. I am not confused by libel or slander. This was discussed in depth in my class, and I graduated not long ago.

It does not matter if you think a person is guilty of a crime or not. If you go around town saying, somebody is a murderer and criminal, because you really really think that that is the truth, but police found no reason to arrest them, they were never charged, etc. etc. Then you're going around town and committing slander.

This is why journalists use the word allegedly, until the person is found guilty in the court of law.

You're trying lay out legal definitions and lecture me on terms like guilt, and what vandalism is, but you are confusing a lay person's, legally irresponsible definition, of criminal, and the legal definition. If you a journalist making this argument, your editor would pull your writing before going to publish because you would be putting your newspaper into legal troble.

 

[SheWolf]

We have videos of the event. That's pretty cut and dried. It happened. It was a crime.

What the students will be charged with (or if they're even charged) is a totally different subject.

And the videos will go to court, and the lawyers will argue the nature of those videos, who did what, intentionally, intentionally, premeditated or not, etc. They will argue and define what happened, how, why, and the punishment.

That's how the legal system actually works, and that's what lawyers do.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I have have taken law classes in college. I am not confused by libel or slander. This was discussed in depth in my class, and I graduated not long ago.

And, yet you made the mistake. Odd.

It does not matter if you think a person is guilty of a crime or not. If you go around town saying, somebody is a murderer and criminal, because you really really think that that is the truth, but police found no reason to arrest them, they were never charged, etc. etc. Then you're going around town and committing slander.

This is why journalists use the word allegedly, until the person is found guilty in the court of law.

You're trying lay out legal definitions and lecture me on terms like guilt, and what vandalism is, but you are confusing a lay person's, legally irresponsible definition, of criminal, and the legal definition. If you a journalist making this argument, your editor would pull your writing before going to publish because you would be putting your newspaper into legal troble.

This is not occurring here, is it? We have actual video of the crime being committed, and by saying that the "kids who were involved" are criminals, we're not listing anyone by name, nor are we asserting something that is not in evidence.

I don't know what type of "law classes" you took, but it doesn't appear that you learned much.

The university has publicly stated that they are looking "into the vandalism," hence we know it's vandalism, and hence, we can safely assume those who did it -- are vandals. Under the law, vandals are criminals.

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[HowardBThiname]

And the videos will go to court, and the lawyers will argue the nature of those videos, who did what, intentionally, intentionally, premeditated or not, etc. They will argue and define what happened, how, why, and the punishment.

That's how the legal system actually works, and that's what lawyers do.

Then you finally admit that a crime has occurred. Because, if there's no crime -- there are no arrests/court/etc.

 

[SheWolf]

And, yet you made the mistake. Odd.



This is not occurring here, is it? We have actual video of the crime being committed, and by saying that the "kids who were involved" are criminals, we're not listing anyone by name, nor are we asserting something that is not in evidence.

I don't know what type of "law classes" you took, but it doesn't appear that you learned much.

The university has publicly stated that they are looking "into the vandalism," hence we know it's vandalism, and hence, we can safely assume those who did it -- are vandals. Under the law, vandals are criminals.

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

No, you don't comprehend the legal definition of the words you're using.

You actually think that because the University is "looking into vandalism" that that means it legally occurred and people are already guilty.

That's not how our legal system words. Looking into vandalism means they are talking to lawyers and looking into filling a charge of vandalism. Depending on the legal code in that state, they could go with vandalism or something else, but it depends on what the lawyers recommend. The legal interpretation of the current facts, does not mean criminals are walking around campus.

You're making huge leaps in logic and misusing legal language

 

[SheWolf]

Then you finally admit that a crime has occurred. Because, if there's no crime -- there are no arrests/court/etc.

People get arrested and get a trial.

People get a trial and are judged.

Being arrested is not proof of guilt. Standing trial, is not proof of guilt

 

[HowardBThiname]

People get arrested and get a trial.

People get a trial and are judged.

Being arrested is not proof of guilt. Standing trial, is not proof of guilt

No one said it was. I said the ones who committed the crime are criminals. No conviction is necessary to be considered a criminal, as long as one committed the crime.