77 replies to this topic

[sam12six]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

I'm not against freedom, I'm against murder, rape, stealing, assault, arson, terrorism, the main things gangs prevail themselves in, which are against the law.  No I don't like criminals.

So, you think that having been proud of a country that required evidence to convict people means I'm PRO murder, rape, stealing, assault, arson and terrorism? As you point out, all those things are already against the law (except terrorism which has no definition beyond "If the government decides you've done it"). Why would you believe it's a bad thing that the government protects us from itself? Why would you believe it's a good thing that the government should be able to strip that protection from any US Citizen without a trial?

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

You talk about laws, they don't follow laws, that is what their patch is about.

Yes, that's what the patch is about. So what? I can head into the nearest police station and confess to killing Kennedy and they won't execute me for treason. Y'know why? Yep, it's that whole nation of law that requires evidence for convictions thing.

So, you don't like bikers. I'll tell you something: Neither do I (though in my case, it's mostly because they deliberately make their motorcycles louder - that really pisses me off). If you've proof of their crimes, you should come forward and have them prosecuted. If you don't have anything more than rumor, you should probably stop posting on internet forums that their Constitutional rights should be violated and they be declared treats to national security.

[HavocWing]

sam12six, on 12 October 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

you should probably stop posting on internet forums that their Constitutional rights should be violated and they be declared treats to national security.

I didn't say they should be violated, what I posted was about morality, how can someone who has no respect for the law be protected under it?  It's about their morality.

Edited by HavocWing, 12 October 2012 - 02:01 AM.

[sam12six]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

I didn't say they should be violated, what I posted was about morality, how can someone who has no respect for the law be protected under it?  It's about their morality.

Because the law has no morality. That's what makes it such a powerful shield to freedom (theoretically). No one gets convicted because a government official doesn't like them (theoretically). Morality is subjective and different from person to person. It's much better to live in a world where you know what things are illegal than one where someone's personal interpretation of your character determines whether you've committed a crime.

[Stellar]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

If a one percenter is so bold as to wear a patch saying to everyone that they are a lawbreaker and don't follow laws, then why should they even be granted any rights under the law?

Wow. Why don't you just head over to North Korea. You may like it there.

[The Silver Thong]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

I didn't say they should be violated, what I posted was about morality, how can someone who has no respect for the law be protected under it?  It's about their morality.

So you think anothers moral standards should dictate over anothers and that laws of ones morality trumps another. Go back to the 1400s and tell me how that works out for ya.

[Michelle]

Last year Obama signed an order saying a suspected terrorist can be held in Gitmo idefinitely...without a trial.

[OverSword]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

I didn't say they should be violated, what I posted was about morality, how can someone who has no respect for the law be protected under it?  It's about their morality.

You just don't have any common sense.  Maybe you should read up about the republic, it's history, it's laws, and see why you can't take someones rights away just because they have a patch on thier jacket.  We have laws and due process for a very good reason.  To save us from scared little idiots that can only see things in black and white.  Your screen name has the word havoc in it therefore you may create havoc.  Bad for society.  We should probably just lock you up now to be on the safe side.  Also you've been arguing against law and justice.  Off with his head.

[HavocWing]

OverSword, on 12 October 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

You just don't have any common sense.  Maybe you should read up about the republic, it's history, it's laws, and see why you can't take someones rights away just because they have a patch on thier jacket.  We have laws and due process for a very good reason.  To save us from scared little idiots that can only see things in black and white.  Your screen name has the word havoc in it therefore you may create havoc.  Bad for society.  We should probably just lock you up now to be on the safe side.  Also you've been arguing against law and justice.  Off with his head.

Well I would rather die than live in a country that exalts evil and terrorism.

[OverSword]

Just admit you're wrong.

[HavocWing]

OverSword, on 12 October 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Just admit you're wrong.

Wrong from what???  If they want to follow laws and live normal laws like the rest of us, I'm not against that, the thing is they don't want to,  they want to kill, steal, rape, assault people (They think it is cool).  If you don't understand that, than it is you who is the one without common sense.

Edited by HavocWing, 12 October 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[HavocWing]

A gang member is the very definition of a nihilist:

1.
of or believing in nihilism,  or the total rejection of established laws and institutions: An exhibition of nihilistic art—now there's an oxymoron!
2.
embracing anarchy, terrorism, and destruction: nihilstic tactics learned in a terrorist bootcamp.
3.
Philosophy . of or believing in an extreme form of skepticism; belief in nothingness.

[OverSword]

You can throw dictionary definitions around all you want, but are off the mark as far as the subject of this thread.  This thread is about labeling people with in order to rob them of thier right to a fair trial and due process of the law.  You can't really be so thick as to not understand that.  The only way I can be sure I'm not addressing a child is that if you were you would be in schooll at this time of day in AZ and not on this forum.

[HavocWing]

OverSword, on 12 October 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

You can throw dictionary definitions around all you want, but are off the mark as far as the subject of this thread.  This thread is about labeling people with in order to rob them of thier right to a fair trial and due process of the law.  You can't really be so thick as to not understand that.  The only way I can be sure I'm not addressing a child is that if you were you would be in schooll at this time of day in AZ and not on this forum.

No where does it state robbing them of a fair trial.  You need to read the original link again.  Defense lawyers would be all over robbing someone of a fair trial.

I see the guy in the link as a lunatic like James Holmes (Who is getting a fair trial).

I wonder if you are a gang member.

Edited by HavocWing, 12 October 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[OverSword]

HavocWing, on 12 October 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

No where does it state robbing them of a fair trial.  You need to read the original link again.  Defense lawyers would be all over robbing someone of a fair trial.

I see the guy in the link as a lunatic like James Holmes (Who is getting a fair trial).

I wonder if you are a gang member.

Wonder away.

If I am do I have rights?  Terorists don't.  That's what you don't seem to understand.  Also, pig headed as you are I see that you ignored me when I asked you to read the story about the SWAT team I posted yesterday.

[HavocWing]

OverSword, on 12 October 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Wonder away.

If I am do I have rights?  Terorists don't.  That's what you don't seem to understand.  Also, pig headed as you are I see that you ignored me when I asked you to read the story about the SWAT team I posted yesterday.

I read your post, but that is what happens when individuals are labeled without due process, this topic is about gang members in general, no one has been named.  And for the past how many decades, how have gangs/gang members gained their infamy from?

Why did you post that image?  You could have just said yes.  Did you post that to show that you have power in numbers and to instill fear into me?