 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."
You don’t have to, and that is fine. If there was law in America there would be honest people assembled in a Grand Jury. The most honest and discrete among the people of the county in which the murder took place would constitute a lawful, independent, Grand Jury. Those people, having all jurisdiction civil and criminal, would subpoena witnesses, question the accused, and present their findings so as to begin trying the case lawfully. The trial jurors find the facts that matter in the case during a jury trial, which is a trial by the country. That is what would happen if the law was in force in America. That the law is not in force in America is the point.
Helping to cover up a murder is unlawful at base principles.
Again pretending: The Grand Jury in the county assemble... These people constitute an independent group of regular people, meaning that these are not people on the public dole, people not paid to be the so-called government, with uniforms, badges, and licenses to kill indiscriminately, instead these are representatives of the most discrete and honest people in that county, and they assemble to find out if there is probable cause to try a conspiracy murder case. If there is probable cause, then the accused is put on trial.
If you and I were on the Grand Jury, in this case, then it would be our specified duty to find evidence of murder if that evidence exists. Our duty would not be to make sure that we find no evidence, even if it exists. And that lawful work is merely to establish probable cause to try the case, so the evidence is not yet deemed factual, because that judgment of fact is the duty of the trial jury, in a trial by the country, not a trial by the government.
"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."
Pretending again. In this case, suppose I went out and found the interview posted in my last comment, as a Grand Juror, and you did not find that interview, but that interview is placed before you, as we 2 are members of that Grand Jury, where it is our duty to ensure that conspiracy murderers are not running amok in our county murdering innocent people. We don’t try the case, we merely look for, and hopefully find, probable cause to try the case, if there is probable cause to try the case. We don't make sure that we don't find any evidence, because are duty is to find evidence, our duty is not to make sure we never find any evidence.
If I start out with a predetermined verdict before looking at any evidence, then I’m not honest, and therefore I would be a poor example, and I would not represent the people in that county. That applies to everyone else in any position of true law. But on the Grand Jury, as I pretend it could exist, the pretense is that my mind was open until I found that evidence offered in the last comment.
Radio Transmission: "We need to kill Lavoy Finicum."
I then work to convince you, and anyone else on the Grand Jury to put the accused, recorded on that radio transmission (if it exists) on trial. I do that based upon that testimony alone. That is because I’m pretending law exists in America, as I have not actually verified the existence of that radio transmission between officer 1 and officer 2 during the murder. That radio transmission may or may not actually be already one piece of inculpatory evidence available to the public, because we need to know, or to any accuser or defendant, and anyone else lawfully capable of trying that case, in an actual court of law.
If you wish to ignore that evidence as you comment on a public web page, that is fine. If you continue to make claims as if there was no murder, then, in my opinion, you aid and abet the murderers.
“All your other malarkey is nothing but speculation, sir.”
https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/9870-2/
“Greg and Stewart discuss how this barricade/roadblock was placed after a curve, which did not afford Lavoy ample time to see the barricade and stop his vehicle. Greg also covers exactly why barricading/use of roadblocks is considered deadly force and inherently dangerous and life-threatening, and why most jurisdictions in the United States considers them antiquated, and have gotten away from using them.”
The use of deadly force, the license to kill, is lawful for anyone, anywhere, anytime, when facing imminent danger, who could argue otherwise, other than someone intent upon killing the innocent, after disarming the innocent?
The point here is that there is a process by which the truth is found in this or any case, but that is not happening, instead, malarkey is the point, so at to cover-up the murder, and afford the murderers their license to murder at the expense of their victims.