(October 9, 2014 at 12:09 am)HopOnPop Wrote: (I skipped over everything above. You have finally given an answer to my question from three days ago thus making everything above irrelevant -- but if you wish to raise up things past again, feel free -- but I am thinking we are both have had enough of this thread, no?)
My position should've been obvious from say 1. I think it was obvious to others.
(October 9, 2014 at 12:09 am)HopOnPop Wrote: Wrong. You cannot know these things, so you are merely speculating. There is no way to know what was or wasn't actually charged, discussed, agreed upon, etc. (its a juvenile case so the books are sealed on it) nor even how the final plea was arrived at. The lack of information coming out of the mouth of the prosecuting DA is merely him following the law.
Actually, we do know enough about the case to judge intent of intimidation:
1. Picture of BJ-Christ is not an established method of intimidation.
2. The picture was simply posted on his facebook page - not distributed elsewhere.
3. There were no accompanying statements with the picture indicating intimidation.
4. Intimidation is an actual crime - so if the DA had any evidence of it, he'd have charged the kid with that instead of "desecration of revered object" statute.
That there was intimidation is pure speculation on your part.
(October 9, 2014 at 12:09 am)HopOnPop Wrote: I disagree. We have no evidence at all to demonstrate your assertion. Virginia v Black, on the other hand, was a rather slam dunk case of over-reach. In the end your only argument pretty much reduces down to a product of your own internal biases. That is the definition of "unclear" in my mind.
I still contend the kid got what he deserved.
Demonstrate my assertion? Did you forget how law works? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not defense. You have to provide evidence for there being an intent to intimidate. You can't just assume that there was intent to intimidate and expect everyone else to disprove it. Until you do so, the assumption is there was no intent to intimidate. In fact, there isn't even any actual intimidation.
For the record, you did not claim "intent to intimidate" on the kid's part until the last post. Before that, you regarded him guilty of "potential incitement of violence" and "offending the community" - both of which, if you agree with my first statement - are not crimes. Which is probably why you are now charging him with "intent to intimidate".
