Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert
I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.
|
I don't think he is. I think he believes a real man "whoops yo' ass" if you bother him and f***' em if they start to lose - they shouldn't been bothering his ass.
Your welcome. I find the work by the lawyers in this matter fascinating.
I am also fascinated - and discouraged - by the ease with which some here are willing to ignore the requirements of the law to accomplish what they believe should be the "right" outcome and their failure to see this logic as anything more than an old style mob lynching.
Equally disconcerting to me is the belief of some here that, even if TM initiated the
physical confrontation b/c Z followed (or stalked if you would like the more emotionally charged word) and aggressively verbally confronted him, TM would somehow be justified in attacking Z.
The rule of law is not dead in this country, but I firmly believe it is on life support.