Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters

7On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:28:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno
<jbruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 11, 12:55 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:53:39 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno





<jbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:38 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:19:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno

<jbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:45 pm, cindys <cste...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 10:18 pm, chsw <chsw10...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:24 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:58 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
Verbal aggressiveness does not always lead to physical harm.
American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those
which are not credible.
If a person who lives 2,000 miles away says he wants to punch you out,
it is not a credible threat.
If he is your next door neighbor, it would be considered credible.
You must look at the context and circumstances.
But even from 2000 miles away someone who expresses an intent to
physical violence is not likely to encourage others to respond to him,
read what he says, or treat him in a friendly manner.
--
That's true, but I was discussing the subject in a strictly legal
context.
I have a legal background and I love the law, so I sort of venture
into it whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy.
That's also why I deal with words very precisely here.
Sometimes when I ask for proof, I'm not denying what the person said.
I'm simply doing what lawyers do.
It's become a habit with me.
Then you know, as someone who studied law (I notice that you do not say
that you're an attorney...), that mere physical proximity is not the
sole criterion for determining credibility of threat.  Other factors can
be involved, including probability of travel, the likelihood that the
victim will be or ever need to be in proximity to the accused, history
of the accused and even history of the victim as to whether the threat
caused fear, reasonable or not.  Additionally, mere words are regulated
in some localities.  Likewise, certain threats, credible or not, are
actionable if said with intent.  I'd recommend that if you don't mean
it, don't say it.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm curious about that.  I knew several lawyers who started off
as prosecutors in the armed forces.  They all had to pass a
civilian bar exam somewhere as well as a military law exam before
their service would let them practice before courts-martial.

How could you not have been a lawyer but practiced as a prosecutor?

-----------------
How could someone be a lawyer or a prosecutor when he demands that
other people "prove" his own statements five minutes after he says
them?  I would think that in a courtroom the defense attorney (and the
judge) would tire very quickly of a prosecutor who insisted that the
same testimony be repeated three, four, or five times within the
timespan of a few minutes. I also wouldn't think they would take very
kindly to mindgames in a courtroom. Or to prosecutors who speak
ambiguously or say things like:

You distort again. I said I was a prosecutor under UCMJ Article 15,
Non-judicial punishment.

You didn't say anything about non-judicial punishment when you said
you were a prosecutor

I said it right here:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/93db7....

You'll have to do a lot better than that.  This post was 6 hours after
Cindy posted.

Joe answers, but no apology is forthcoming for saying "I said it right
here" and then giving a post that came out 6+ hours after Cindy
posted.

Are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or are you just not
paying attention to the times, or do you not get it that time order
matters?

So again I say: You didn't say anything about non-judicial punishment
when you said you were a prosecutor.

You didn't ask me.

We didn't have to ask you. You pretended Cindy knew this in order to
levy false charges against her. Read the thread again and again
until you understand it.

All the tripe that follows ignores the points I made in my post.

You should be ashamed of yourself for what you said about Cindy.

You and Cindy assumed I prosecuted in a courtroom,
which was an ignorant assumption on your part based on ZERO knowledge
or just plain apathy.

There are, in American civilian law, legal decisions made by
administrative agencies with lawyers present which never see a
courtroom.
The IRS is one example. The FCC is another.

You have no valid excuse and all the tons of verbiage you pour at me
will not obscure that reality.

The reality is that you called Cindy a distorter and clearly implied
that she is a liar, basing this on things she didn't know because you
had never said them, and then claiming you said them when in fact it
was 6 hours after she posted.

This is the most disgusting post I've seen from you, somehow even
worse than the one I refer to in the previous paragraph.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading