Pacman faces two felony charges

[theogt]

But of course that is why you had to respond to my comment, after all, it was a worthless comment.

I didn't say it was worthless. I'm just not concerned with it. I think it's a silly perception. That doesn't mean I won't respond to it.

People often think opposition to one side means support for the opposite conclusion. That isn't the case. In fact, there are three sides to this entire debate: (1) Pro-Pacman, (2) Anti-Pacman, and (3) No *****' clue.

I'm in the 3rd group.

 

[theogt]

Yeah.

It sure looks that way.

That's why you've spent the past 3 hours defending your boy.

Where have I defended him?

You want to stand with him?

No.

At least have the guts to do it all the way.

Why? What are "guts"? Why do I have to have "guts"? Why do I have to stand by Pacman in order to have them?

 

[Stash]

Didn't say you did.

No, you're not. Neither am I.

Ok.

But you contested whether I was biased or not. Are you now conceding that I am not biased? Or simply ignoring your own argument?

Reread the thread and take a look at the number of times you've taken on the case for this piece of trash.

And then come back and tell me how unbiased you are.

Looks to me like you're in the wrong field of work.

You have all the makings of a fine defense attorney.

Those guys never care whether their client is guilty either.

 

[Stash]

I didn't say it was worthless. I'm just not concerned with it. I think it's a silly perception. That doesn't mean I won't respond to it.

People often think opposition to one side means support for the opposite conclusion. That isn't the case. In fact, there are three sides to this entire debate: (1) Pro-Pacman, (2) Anti-Pacman, and (3) No *****' clue.

I'm in the 3rd group.

Well, if you're in group 3, maybe you should reserve comment as well as judgement?

I mean since you're playing the 'Switzerland' role in all of this....

 

[theogt]

Reread the thread and take a look at the number of times you've taken on the case for this piece of trash.

And then come back and tell me how unbiased you are.

Looks to me like you're in the wrong field of work.

You have all the makings of a fine defense attorney.

Those guys never care whether their client is guilty either.

I do corporate law. And I think you're confused about the term "unbiased."

Well, if you're in group 3, maybe you should reserve comment as well as judgement?

I mean since you're playing the 'Switzerland' role in all of this....

Why should I reserve comment?

 

[Stash]

I do corporate law. And I think you're confused about the term "unbiased."

Hardly. I'd check yourself if I were you. On the plus side, I think you have a bright future in your chosen field. Just hope you can sleep at night.

Why should I reserve comment?

Since you're reserving judgement, what do you really have to say?

If your point is that you're 'sitting this one out until you get all the facts', there's really not much for you to say, is there?

Well apparently there is.....

 

[theogt]

Hardly. I'd check yourself if I were you. On the plus side, I think you have a bright future in your chosen field. Just hope you can sleep at night.

Can you tell me how I'm biased?

Since you're reserving judgement, what do you really have to say?

That you're stance is wrong.

If your point is that you're 'sitting this one out until you get all the facts', there's really not much for you to say, is there?

Well apparently there is.....

Well, yeah. Of course there is.

 

[Stash]

Can you tell me how I'm biased?

Every post you makes comes in defense of Pacman. None are critical of him in any way. Hope that helps.

That you're stance is wrong.

My 'stance' is that Adam 'Pacman' Jones is a scumbag, thug of a human being who doesn't deserve to live in normal society with the rest of us. I'm hopeful that he is convicted of the many wrongdoings he has committed. I say this because of what he has done as a person, I don't attack him for the color of his skin, but I don't defend him for it either. I see multiple incidents involving the same person and I have therefore come to the conclusion that he and those he associates with are no good. I have taken my blinders off. That's my stance.

The difference is that I have the guts to give my stance.

I don't hide.

But listen, we can go round and round on this all night.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

How's that sound?

 

[theogt]

Every post you makes comes in defense of Pacman. None are critical of him in any way. Hope that helps.

How have I defended Pacman?

My 'stance' is that Adam 'Pacman' Jones is a scumbag, thug of a human being who doesn't deserve to live in normal society with the rest of us. I'm hopeful that he is convicted of the many wrongdoings he has committed. I say this because of what he has done as a person, I don't attack him for the color of his skin, but I don't defend him for it either. I see multiple incidents involving the same person and I have therefore come to the conclusion that he and those he associates with are no good. I have taken my blinders off. That's my stance.

Your stance is that he's guilty, regardless of the facts. You've made it clear in this thread. Having that stance is wrong. He may be guilty, but you have no idea.

The difference is that I have the guts to give my stance.

I don't hide.

But listen, we can go round and round on this all night.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

How's that sound?

There's a thin line between "guts" and "stupidity."

 

[WoodysGirl]

Every post you makes comes in defense of Pacman. None are critical of him in any way. Hope that helps.

I guess I don't understand something. Why is thinking that a case isn't solid and defending that position means you support the accused in the case?

One has nothing to do with the other, IMO. Meaning what you feel about a person has nothing to do with what you feel about the case against a person.

 

[Stash]

I guess I don't understand something. Why is thinking that a case isn't solid and defending that position means you support the accused in the case?

One has nothing to do with the other, IMO. Meaning what you feel about a person has nothing to do with what you feel about the case against a person.

So the point is that you both feel he somehow deserves the benefit of the doubt?

That I'm wrong for 'rushing to judgement'?

I get it.

I don't. I'm commenting in the 'Court of Public Opinion'.

Tell it to the guy who's paralyzed.

 

[theogt]

So the point is that you both feel he somehow deserves the benefit of the doubt?

That I'm wrong for 'rushing to judgement'?

I get it.

I don't. I'm commenting in the 'Court of Public Opinion'.

Tell it to the guy who's paralyzed.

This post is a jumbled mess.

 

[WoodysGirl]

So the point is that you both feel he somehow deserves the benefit of the doubt?

That I'm wrong for 'rushing to judgement'?

I get it.

I don't. I'm commenting in the 'Court of Public Opinion'.

Tell it to the guy who's paralyzed.

I never said that. He's a knucklehead and has shown that he doesn't get it.

But expressing doubt about the charges, based only on the known public facts doesn't mean you support the guy.

On a side note: I do feel bad for the guy who was shot and paralyzed. Especially because no charges have been brought against anyone for his shooting.

 

[Stash]

I never said that. He's a knucklehead and has shown that he doesn't get it.

But expressing doubt about the charges, based only on the known public facts doesn't mean you support the guy.

Well it sure doesn't sound 'unbiased', especially considering that the guy and his crew just acted up again in almost the same manner.

And as I've said numerous times, I'm not unbiased. I can't stand the guy and hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

I know he's guilty. And guilty of plenty more things as well. And I hope they have a strong enough case to send him to jail.

And here in the 'Court of Public Opinion', I don't have to wait for the legal process to play out.

 

[theogt]

Well it sure doesn't sound 'unbiased'

But why does it not sound unbiased?

 

[WoodysGirl]

Well it sure doesn't sound 'unbiased', especially considering that the guy and his crew just acted up again in almost the same manner.

un·bi·ased /ʌnˈbaɪəst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-bahy-uhst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective not biased or prejudiced; fair; impartial.

Actually it does to me.

And as I've said numerous times, I'm not unbiased. I can't stand the guy and hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

I know he's guilty. And guilty of plenty more things as well. And I hope they have a strong enough case to send him to jail.

And here in the 'Court of Public Opinion', I don't have to wait for the legal process to play out.

You have every right to feel as strongly as you do about him personally. But it's got nothing to do with the pertinent points that are being discussed about the case. This is something alot of people seem to forget.

 

[silverbear]

In fact, there are three sides to this entire debate: (1) Pro-Pacman, (2) Anti-Pacman, and (3) No *****' clue.

I'm in the 3rd group.

We already knew that, pal...

Sorry, somebody had to take the kill shot, even if it WAS obvious...

 

[FLcowboy]

I might visit him in the pen.

Please

 

[Stash]

How have I defended Pacman?

I didn't say he was being railroaded. But I don't see how that's any different than just assuming he did it, because he fits the profile.

Here's a nice one Mr Cochran. He 'fits the profile'? Of what? A thug who goes to strip clubs where people end up getting shot at? That profile? Yeah he does fit it. And more than once.

Your stance is that he's guilty, regardless of the facts. You've made it clear in this thread. Having that stance is wrong. He may be guilty, but you have no idea.

I have yet to see a 'fact' that comes close to exonerating him. If you have, please enlighten us - and maybe the prosecutor who thinks otherwise.

There's a thin line between "guts" and "stupidity."

As thin as the line between honesty and cowardice?

Or maybe the one between 'unbiased' and 'excuse-making'?

 

[peplaw06]

Well it sure doesn't sound 'unbiased', especially considering that the guy and his crew just acted up again in almost the same manner.

And as I've said numerous times, I'm not unbiased. I can't stand the guy and hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

I know he's guilty. And guilty of plenty more things as well. And I hope they have a strong enough case to send him to jail.

And here in the 'Court of Public Opinion', I don't have to wait for the legal process to play out.

So your opinion is fine in the Court of Public Opinion, but those who happen to have the Opinion that they'll wait until the case has played out legally before judging someone are wrong?

You guys love to call us Pacman Supporters or his defense team, but in fact all we're doing is waiting before we condemn someone. What's wrong with that?

You can have your opinion, we'll have ours.

We already knew that, pal...

Sorry, somebody had to take the kill shot, even if it WAS obvious...

The truth is, all 3 groups have no ****** clue, except for the people intimately involved with the case. No one on this board knows all the facts. Unless Pacman himself or the attorneys in that case are reading.

Here's a nice one Mr Cochran. He 'fits the profile'? Of what? A thug who goes to strip clubs where people end up getting shot at? That profile? Yeah he does fit it. And more than once.



I have yet to see a 'fact' that comes close to exonerating him. If you have, please enlighten us - and maybe the prosecutor who thinks otherwise.



As thin as the line between honesty and cowardice?

Or maybe the one between 'unbiased' and 'excuse-making'?

What you don't get is no one has to have "facts to exonerate him." It's the State's burden to prove he did it. They have to have the facts. The lack of facts is enough to get a not guilty.