Just now, placeholder said:

 Their arrest by the police is not evidence of guilt. If the police had useful videos those would be evidence.

Guilt would be decided by a court, however you claimed 

 

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just because this tape provides evidence that some people were trespassing, that doesn't mean that this tape provides evidence of exactly who they were. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn't. No matter how many times you show it. 

You are clearly wrong. Do you admit that? You also admit the tape provides evidence some people were trespassing.

 

41 were taken, arrested, charged, the DA later decided to drop charges on most. 13 still have charges over them. 

 

 

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Guilt would be decided by a court, however you claimed 

 

You are clearly wrong. Do you admit that? You also admit the tape provides evidence some people were trespassing.

 

41 were taken, arrested, charged, the DA later decided to drop charges on most. 13 still have charges over them. 

 

 

And where have I questioned that the DA's office feels it has sufficient evidence to prosecute the 13? It's the fact that so many of those arrested have had charges dismissed that has generated the outrage. Did you read the headline? 

Outrage as Manhattan DA Drops Charges Against Columbia University Anti-Israel Protesters

Just now, placeholder said:

And where have I questioned that the DA's office feels it has sufficient evidence to prosecute the 13? It's the fact that so many of those arrested have had charges dismissed that has generated the outrage. Did you read the headline? 

Outrage as Manhattan DA Drops Charges Against Columbia University Anti-Israel Protesters

 

More deflection and dishonest debating.

 

You also forgot that bit that 13 are still charged, 13 who were in Hamilton Hall, the video I supplied for you to view and who you claimed they  "doesn't mean that this tape provides evidence of exactly who they were"

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

More deflection and dishonest debating.

 

You also forgot that bit that 13 are still charged, 13 who were in Hamilton Hall, the video I supplied for you to view and who you claimed they  "doesn't mean that this tape provides evidence of exactly who they were"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was that video used to identify who was in Hamilton Hall? I didn't see any identifiable faces from it. Was there no evidence from other videos or other sources used to identify the 13?

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Was that video used to identify who was in Hamilton Hall? I didn't see any identifiable faces from it. Was there no evidence from other videos or other sources used to identify the 13?

Bye F1 is starting in 10 mins, watching it with my daughter, oh just because you didn't see any identifiable faces it does not mean the police didn't when they were brought to the police station. Any more questions research yourself, I made myself clear in the my previous post.

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Bye F1 is starting in 10 mins, watching it with my daughter, oh just because you didn't see any identifiable faces it does not mean the police didn't when they were brought to the police station. Any more questions research yourself, I made myself clear in the my previous post.

"However, the DA's office dismissed cases against 31 of these individuals, citing insufficient evidence, such as security footage, to tie them directly to the building's takeover."

What is so hard to understand about that?

On 6/22/2024 at 6:24 PM, Yellowtail said:

It is interesting that the left in the US seems to absolutely hate Christians and Jews, but they love them some Muslims, why do you suppose that is? 

I suppose it's because you like sweeping generalisations that have no basis in facts.

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

"However, the DA's office dismissed cases against 31 of these individuals, citing insufficient evidence, such as security footage, to tie them directly to the building's takeover."

What is so hard to understand about that?

We can all take more quotes. What do you fail to understand about that?

 

None of the arrested students had any previous criminal history, and all were facing disciplinary proceedings, including suspensions and expulsions, by Columbia.
All 46 protesters, who were arrested on the night of April 30, were initially charged with trespass in the third degree, a misdemeanour.
Manhattan district attorney's office told a court on Thursday that they would drop the charges against 31 protesters citing "prosecutorial discretion and lack of evidence".
Prosecutors also told 14 others that their cases would be dropped if they avoided being arrested in the next six months. The defendants rejected the offer and are all due back in court on 25 July.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp66d9lg60ro

10 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

I suppose it's because you like sweeping generalisations that have no basis in facts.

 

 

"generalisations"? You mean like Trump supporters are stupid? 

 

In any event, I'm sorry, I should have said: It is interesting that most of the left in the US seems to absolutely hate Christians and Jews, but most of them love them some Muslims, why do you suppose that is? 

 

Is that better?

On 6/22/2024 at 8:35 AM, Social Media said:

This incident highlights the challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial systems in dealing with large-scale protests and the need for clear and effective evidence to pursue criminal charges. The decision by DA Bragg’s office underscores the complexity of balancing legal standards of proof with public demands for accountability and justice.

IMO from watching the VDO of brutal police tactics against non violent protestors, it is the cops that should be charged with crimes.

 

Seems they learned nothing since Vietnam protests, eg Kent State.

 

IMO the DA did the right thing.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO from watching the VDO of brutal police tactics against non violent protestors, it is the cops that should be charged with crimes.

 

Seems they learned nothing since Vietnam protests, eg Kent State.

 

IMO the DA did the right thing.

You would, it's in your genes............

An off topic post with additional unsupported claims has been removed.

On 6/24/2024 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

 

 

"generalisations"? You mean like Trump supporters are stupid? 

 

 

That's not what 'generalisations' infers but I suppose you not knowing that kinda supports the second part of your statement.

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

That's not what 'generalisations' infers but I suppose you not knowing that kinda supports the second part of your statement.

Did you mean to say implies? 

 

On 6/23/2024 at 10:09 PM, Bkk Brian said:

We can all take more quotes. What do you fail to understand about that?

 

None of the arrested students had any previous criminal history, and all were facing disciplinary proceedings, including suspensions and expulsions, by Columbia.
All 46 protesters, who were arrested on the night of April 30, were initially charged with trespass in the third degree, a misdemeanour.
Manhattan district attorney's office told a court on Thursday that they would drop the charges against 31 protesters citing "prosecutorial discretion and lack of evidence".
Prosecutors also told 14 others that their cases would be dropped if they avoided being arrested in the next six months. The defendants rejected the offer and are all due back in court on 25 July.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp66d9lg60ro

"Manhattan district attorney's office told a court on Thursday that they would drop the charges against 31 protesters citing "prosecutorial discretion and lack of evidence".

Apparently the Manhattan DA.s office, unlike you,  understands that the fact that someone gets arrested does not, in itself, count as evidence.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"Manhattan district attorney's office told a court on Thursday that they would drop the charges against 31 protesters citing "prosecutorial discretion and lack of evidence".

Apparently the Manhattan DA.s office, unlike you,  understands that the fact that someone gets arrested does not, in itself, count as evidence.

Yawn, why are you ignoring. "Prosecutors also told 14 others that their cases would be dropped if they avoided being arrested in the next six months. The defendants rejected the offer and are all due back in court on 25 July."

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yawn, why are you ignoring. "Prosecutors also told 14 others that their cases would be dropped if they avoided being arrested in the next six months. ThIe defendants rejected the offer and are all due back in court on 25 July."

I never claimed that there was no valid evidence against all those people. You're the one who claimed that the police arrest is evidence that all of those arrested committed crimes. And you claimed to be ablle to show videos that proved that these people had committed crimes despite the fact that the DA's office said that the video evidence was poor. And the videos you linked to clearly supported the DA's office characterization.

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I never claimed that there was no valid evidence against all those people. You're the one who claimed that the police arrest is evidence that all of those arrested committed crimes. And you claimed to be ablle to show videos that proved that these people had committed crimes despite the fact that the DA's office said that the video evidence was poor. And the videos you linked to clearly supported the DA's office characterization.

You are all over the place, I will leave you with this and the answer as last time is yes. Now enough of the baiting on repetitive questions that have already been addressed.

 

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You are all over the place, I will leave you with this and the answer as last time is yes. Now enough of the baiting on repetitive questions that have already been addressed.

 

I specifically noted "identifiable students"? I didn't see any that were identifiable from the that video. And you repeatedly claimed that being arrested by the police constituted evidence that these people committed crimes.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I specifically noted "identifiable students"? I didn't see any that were identifiable from the that video. And you repeatedly claimed that being arrested by the police constituted evidence that these people committed crimes.

I think you will find that even though you can't identify them the police could and did as they are still charged and appear in court on the 25th July.....

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I think you will find that even though you can't identify them the police could and did as they are still charged and appear in court on the 25th July.....

But on the basis of video evidence, which is what you claimed?

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

But on the basis of video evidence, which is what you claimed?

The video was of the arrests at Hamilton Hall where they had broken into and were all trespassing, so what do you think?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But on the basis of video evidence, which is what you claimed?

Video evidence is not admissible when leftist protestors are involved. 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The video was of the arrests at Hamilton Hall where they had broken into and were all trespassing, so what do you think?

Take it up with the DA's office.

And what happened to your promise to stop replying? I guess it went the way of your promise to keep on producing videos every time I posted a reply to you. 

Just now, placeholder said:

Take it up with the DA's office.

And what happened to your promise to stop replying? I guess it went the way of your promise to keep on producing videos every time I posted a reply to you. 

I have nothing to take up with the DA, they are at court on the 25th, that's all I need to know.

26 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Right !!!

 

Prior research has shown that there is a selection bias toward fact checking Republicans more often and that they on average receive worse ratings. However, few have examined whether this differential treatment can be attributed to partisan bias. While it is not readily apparent how partisan bias can be objectively measured, this paper develops and tests some novel strategies that seek to answer this question. I find that among PolitiFact’s most prolific fact checkers there is a heterogeneity in their relative ratings of Democrats and Republicans that may suggest the presence of partisanship.

 

Bias in Fact Checking?: An Analysis of Partisan Trends Using PolitiFact Data (duke.edu)

Of course one side is checked more often. They lie more often and make up their facts more often 

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Interesting opinion but without evidence to support your theories they are just that.

 

Woke liberal thinking means your cognitive bias demands absolute proof that anything against your believed narrative is wrong.

And yet you quote dubious sources like NPR as 'proof' of your own beliefs - which I easily debunked in your last post with 2 mins research.

Musk has done all that I stated - facts - research is the open mind's best method to find the truth - try it beyond NPR and CNN etc.

 

 

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Woke liberal thinking means your cognitive bias demands absolute proof that anything against your believed narrative is wrong.

Or perhaps it's just a AN requirement of posting on this topic.

2 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

 

Woke liberal thinking means your cognitive bias demands absolute proof that anything against your believed narrative is wrong.

And yet you quote dubious sources like NPR as 'proof' of your own beliefs - which I easily debunked in your last post with 2 mins research.

Musk has done all that I stated - facts - research is the open mind's best method to find the truth - try it beyond NPR and CNN etc.

 

What happened to your 'right-wing logic and reason(sic)' in your above word salad of illogical fallacies?

Here is a logical analysis of your post:
 

Sweeping Generalization Fallacy: The statement assumes all ‘woke liberals’ demand absolute proof against their beliefs. This is a sweeping generalization as beliefs can vary greatly within the same political or ideological group.
 

Straw Man Fallacy: The argument presents a version of ‘woke liberal’ thinking that may not accurately represent the views of many individuals who identify as such, and then criticizes this misrepresentation.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The statement suggests that because Elon Musk has achieved certain things, all statements about him must be factual. While Musk’s achievements are indeed impressive, it’s important to verify specific claims from reliable sources.
 

False Dilemma Fallacy: The statement implies that one must either accept the ‘woke liberal’ narrative or reject mainstream media outlets like NPR and CNN. In reality, it’s possible to critically engage with multiple sources of information.

Ad Hominem Fallacy: The statement attacks the character (‘cognitive bias’) of ‘woke liberals’ instead of addressing the validity of their arguments or beliefs.
 

Edited June 26, 20242 yr by LosLobo