I don't think I'll move to Egypt ever

[Blake]

"Four-year-old Ahmed Mansour Karni did not bother appearing in an Egyptian military court last week to hear that he was being sentenced to life in prison for murder, attempted murder, vandalization, and threatening the police.

That’s because the crimes the court said he committed took place in early 2013 — around nine months before the child’s second birthday.

But despite repeated appeals from his family, the child’s name somehow still ended up on the list of some 115 defendants sentenced all at once in the West Cairo court last Tuesday.

His father, Mansour, explained on Egyptian television Saturday that security forces came to his family’s door in 2014 asking for his son. When he showed them the toddler, they realized they must have made a mistake, and arrested him instead. Mansour said that he then spent four months in prison waiting to appear before a judge who quickly realized there had been a name mix-up and released him without charges.

That administrative error was somehow not effectively communicated to the military court that handled last week’s trial, and ultimately sentenced his son in absentia for crimes he could not possibly have committed.......

http://news.yahoo.com/one-reason-egyptian-mass-trials-185656681.html

[I. Hustle]

Are they sure that he didn't do what they said he did? Maybe they had fingerprints or something.

[CosmicCowboy]

Blake's tranny love wouldn't go over well there either.

[clambake]

show me a tranny and i'll show you an insecure redneck.

[vy65]

Didn't know clambake was this forum's psychiatrist. Looks like the doctor is in.

[Blake]

CC's tranny bashing doesn't go over well in real life, in most civilized countries.

[Blake]

Didn't know clambake was this forum's psychiatrist. Looks like the doctor is in.

I think we've figured out you'll never be the forum's legal expert.

[vy65]

I think we've figured out you'll never be the forum's legal expert.

Where'd I sign up for that gig?

[vy65]

I think we've figured out you'll never be the forum's legal expert.

More to the point, why do you think I'd want to be the legal expert on a spurs message board?

[clambake]

Didn't know clambake was this forum's psychiatrist. Looks like the doctor is in.

not needed.

you're just not complex.

[vy65]

not needed.

you're just not complex.

Neither are your lame attempts to psychoanalyze people's posts.

[clambake]

i didn't have to analyze anything.

your post remove all doubt.

[clambake]

evolution takes time.

[vy65]

i didn't have to analyze anything.

your post remove all doubt.

zing!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where'd I sign up for that gig?

So when your getting your ass handed to you in arguments you play the "I'm a lawyer" card because of what reason?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Neither are your lame attempts to psychoanalyze people's posts.

You don't even argue the veracity of his analysis but instead attack that he makes it at all whatsoever. Thanks, counselor crayola.

[vy65]

So when your getting your ass handed to you in arguments you play the "I'm a lawyer" card because of what reason?

crofl when have I ever played the "I'm a lawyer card?"

[vy65]

You don't even argue the veracity of his analysis but instead attack that he makes it at all whatsoever. Thanks, counselor crayola.

I hope you realize you're the Richard Jefferson of this forum.

[clambake]

your willingness to expose yourself is refreshing.

[clambake]

and i mean that.

[clambake]

you got nothing to hide.

you wear it like a badge.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope you realize you're the Richard Jefferson of this forum.

Oh noes. A shitty analogy without any analysis. You sure got me, crayola.

When you flail like this I know your losing.

[Blake]

More to the point, why do you think I'd want to be the legal expert on a spurs message board?

Too many of us know you claim to be a lawyer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

crofl when have I ever played the "I'm a lawyer card?"

Never since I started the counselor crayola campaign.

[spurraider21]

Never since I started the counselor crayola campaign.
name calling

so edgy

[vy65]

Too many of us know you claim to be a lawyer.

That's because I am one.

But that wasn't platform of bluster's point.

[vy65]

Never since I started the counselor crayola campaign.

Yes yes. Calling me a crayon really put me in my place.

[Blake]

That's because I am one.

Well no, it's because you told us you are

[vy65]

Well no, it's because you told us you are

And why do you think I told you that?

[spurraider21]

And why do you think I told you that?
objection

calls for speculation

[vy65]

objection

calls for speculation

sustained. there's a rampant lack of personal knowledge up and down this shithole.

[vy65]

sustained. there's a rampant lack of personal knowledge up and down this shithole.

inb4 - "counselor crayola has no personal knowledge hurr durr"

[Blake]

sustained. there's a rampant lack of personal knowledge up and down this shithole.

But we know you think you're a lawyer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes yes. Calling me a crayon really put me in my place.

actions speak louder than words, crayola.

[vy65]

But we know you think you're a lawyer.

Correct

[vy65]

actions speak louder than words, crayola.

Crofl bluster crofl

[DarrinS]

name calling

so edgy

[Blake]

Correct

And why did you tell us that?

[vy65]

And why did you tell us that?

Because I am one. You're going nowhere with this.

[Blake]

Because I am one. You're going nowhere with this.

Did anyone ask you what you do or did you volunteer this information?

[vy65]

Did anyone ask you what you do or did you volunteer this information?

I don't know/remember

[vy65]

Still going nowhere Blake

[Blake]

I don't know/remember

Nobody randomly blurts that they're a lawyer "because they are one".

You had motive to tell us you're a lawyer, didn't you. You wanted validation for your legal opinion, didn't you.

I think the forum jury is smart enough to know someone vying for message board validation when they see it.

You'll say you don't care, but I'm confident the jury will still find you guilty of wanting such validation

Prosecution rests.

[vy65]

Nobody randomly blurts that they're a lawyer "because they are one".

You had motive to tell us you're a lawyer, didn't you. You wanted validation for your legal opinion, didn't you.

I think the forum jury is smart enough to know someone vying for message board validation when they see it.

You'll say you don't care, but I'm confident the jury will still find you guilty of wanting such validation

Prosecution rests.

Link? Or is this just rank speculation?

Also curious about the legal opinions I've offered -- got a link to those too?

Without any evidence, the prosecution is gonna get directed out.

[140]

dis thread :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, I think I asked vy65 if he was an attorney because of the high quality posts and legal detail in some. You jealous low accomplishment ankle biters really suck.

[Blake]

Lol sure you did

[CosmicCowboy]

speaking of ankle biting losers...

[vy65]

Link? Or is this just rank speculation?

[Blake]

speaking of ankle biting losers...

Yeah, here you are

[Blake]

Link? Or is this just rank speculation?

Also curious about the legal opinions I've offered -- got a link to those too?

Without any evidence, the prosecution is gonna get directed out.

Circumstantial evidence and speculation are enough for me to declare you guilty in the court of my personal opinion

[vy65]

So you have nothing backing up your claim and are just being emotional per the par. Neat.

[Blake]

So you have nothing backing up your claim and are just being emotional per the par. Neat.

Lol emotional

I don't care to back up my opinion that you're a crappy lawyer. Your awful posts are scattered around here for you or anyone else to see.

And lol CC's endorsement does you no favors either.

[vy65]

I don't care to back up my opinion

Right, you're being emotional. We get it.

[Blake]

Right, you're being emotional. We get it.

Lol we.

Looks to me that you're the one getting worked up here because of my opinion of you being a shifty lawyer.

[DarrinS]

Nobody randomly blurts that they're a lawyer "because they are one".

You had motive to tell us you're a lawyer, didn't you. You wanted validation for your legal opinion, didn't you.

I think the forum jury is smart enough to know someone vying for message board validation when they see it.

You'll say you don't care, but I'm confident the jury will still find you guilty of wanting such validation

Prosecution rests.


Why are you and Fuzztard obsessed with what people do for a living?

[vy65]

Lol we.

Looks to me that you're the one getting worked up here because of my opinion of you being a shifty lawyer.

Calling you emotional isn't me getting worked up. It's pointing out the fact that you're getting emotional, again.

[Aztecfan03]

ANother thing not to do: Never visit Iran. Kidnapping and arresting Americans is a sport for them, especially since Obama keeps giving in to the terrorists.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are you and Fuzztard obsessed with what people do for a living?

Because they are losers and want to try to drag others down to their level. I think fuzzy calls it wishcasting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you and Fuzztard obsessed with what people do for a living?

I'm not obsessed with it. You brought it up as an appeal for authority as did vy. I could care less otherwise.

Try and keep up, dipshit.

[vy65]

crofl appeal to authority

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And counselor crayola still fails to argue on merit. Notice he doesn't deny it happened. Instead he just ridicules my word choice like a simpleton.

[vy65]

Sorry, what was the merit in your point? All I saw was you carelessly throwing out one of your Intro to Logic 101 terms like this were the local coffee shop.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Counselor crayola apparently cannot read as I pointed out what he didn't do. Critical thinking and reading are hard.

He should have learned such things in middle school reading at the very latest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's also rich that a supposed lawyer is complaining that someone is using basic verbiage that as a lawyer he should already know. If I was talking to terrence or CC you would have a point but youre supposed to be a lawyer dipshit. Logic 101 is not pedantic in that scenario. Not my fault you don't know how to play the part.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bet fuzzy sports skinny jeans, a beret, and has a little chin beard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bet fuzzy sports skinny jeans, a beret, and has a little chin beard.

Nice. Now I'm a hipster. Like I said you peabrains trying to categorize me so as to understand me displays your limitations very clearly.

[vy65]

You accused me of not discussing the merits, so I'm asking you to succinctly clarify your point, Pierre.

Don't bloviate on like this is your shitty grad thesis.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nice. Now I'm a hipster. Like I said you peabrains trying to categorize me so as to understand me displays your limitations very clearly.

I totally understand you are a dipshit. It's your limitations, not mine.

[CosmicCowboy]

I love how bitter little loser fuzzy is. He wasted mommy and daddy's college money and now is just a bitter little bitch picking stupid fights on the Internet. He is boutons in 10 years just hating everyone because his life is such a pit of despair.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love how bitter little loser fuzzy is. He wasted mommy and daddy's college money and now is just a bitter little bitch picking stupid fights on the Internet. He is boutons in 10 years just hating everyone because his life is such a pit of despair.

Pick fights? Why is it that you're here in this thread coming after me unprovoked, fattie? Who is trying to pick a 'fight?'

Again, actions speak louder than words, brother killer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You accused me of not discussing the merits, so I'm asking you to succinctly clarify your point, Pierre.

Don't bloviate on like this is your shitty grad thesis.

I already stated it; I even pointed it out. Your poor reading skills are not my problem.

Further it is mindlessly easy to disprove a negative. OTOH, asking me to run around and prove one is, as any lawyer should know, a waste of time.

[vy65]

I already stated it; I even pointed it out. Your poor reading skills are not my problem.

Further it is mindlessly easy to disprove a negative. OTOH, asking me to run around and prove one is, as any lawyer should know, a waste of time.

Mentioning something hardly counts as support of it. You've still not backed up what you've said, merits-wise.

Resorting to your time honored tradition of vommitting PHL101 drivel doesn't count, sorry.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Mentioning something hardly counts as support of it. You've still not backed up what you've said, merits-wise.

Resorting to your time honored tradition of vommitting PHL101 drivel doesn't count, sorry.

So because I don't want to repeat myself when I've already pointed out the merit that you even now refuse to address means I never made the argument?

What specifically do you think is at an entry level college level? How to prove a negative? Various fallacies? Youre still not arguing on merit but resorting completely to vitriol and incredulity as if your ignorance is the standard by which others should judge. This is boring.

If I don't respond the next time it's because you are incapable of arguing on merit and I have better things to do..

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And counselor crayola still fails to argue on merit. Notice he doesn't deny it happened. Instead he just ridicules my word choice like a simpleton.


Sorry, what was the merit in your point? All I saw was you carelessly throwing out one of your Intro to Logic 101 terms like this were the local coffee shop.


Counselor crayola apparently cannot read as I pointed out what he didn't do. Critical thinking and reading are hard.

He should have learned such things in middle school reading at the very latest.

[vy65]

So because I don't want to repeat myself when I've already pointed out the merit that you even now refuse to address means I never made the argument?

What specifically do you think is at an entry level college level? How to prove a negative? Various fallacies? Youre still not arguing on merit but resorting completely to vitriol and incredulity as if your ignorance is the standard by which others should judge. This is boring.

If I don't respond the next time it's because you are incapable of arguing on merit and I have better things to do..

I'm asking you to back up your claim that there's some sort of appeal to authority going on. You've failed to specify where/when that's been done.

It's a simple request for clarification, it shouldn't be too hard for you Pierre. Although you'll probably take this as yet another opportunity to regurgitate key terms that you learned in class today -- words that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not so sure this is right - but I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I could very well be wrong about criminal procedure.

From what I've seen, a trial is required to officially revoke a criminal's probation. Given revocation requires a full-blown trial, all the normal rules of evidence, procedure, etc... apply. And because it's a trial, a judicial order is (obviously) required to revoke probation.

From what I've read, the sole issue in Leonard was whether to accept an expert's testimony -- testimony which relied solely on an inadmissible type of evidence. As the Court put it, Leonard was essentially tried-by-polygraph. Given an inadmissible type of evidence was the sole basis for his parole-revocation, the trial court got it wrong and was reversed.

You're right that probation isn't required, and you might be right that a wide array of conditions can be placed on parole (the part about "additional crimes" is wholly irrelevant). What you're getting wrong is the fact that a trial (with all applicable rules of evidence and procedure) is required to "officially" revoke parole. To the extent that a trial is necessary, you can't bootstrap in inadmissible evidence under the guise that 1) it was a condition to parole or 2) an expert relied upon it.

your deprecation notwithstanding you were inserting your profession as to make you more of an authority as opposed to who you were arguing with.

Reading through the threads and watching you argue with wine, RG, blake, myself and others I have to say you are one disingenuous prick. I just think its hilarious that I have you to the point now where you won't even try to argue on merit anymore. You used to and call people idiots and all such manner of things. You really don't like it being done to you.

rank intellectual cowardice.

[vy65]

your deprecation notwithstanding you were inserting your profession as to make you more of an authority as opposed to who you were arguing with.

Reading through the threads and watching you argue with wine, RG, blake, myself and others I have to say you are one disingenuous prick. I just think its hilarious that I have you to the point now where you won't even try to argue on merit anymore. You used to and call people idiots and all such manner of things. You really don't like it being done to you.

rank intellectual cowardice.

One more time, link me to exactly when I've "inserted my profession" to make me more. And I ask that, putting aside the sheer awkwardness and vagueness of the question. This really shouldn't be that hard Pierre.

Lol the guy who puts TSA on ignore accusing me of c:lolw:lolrdice