:)
To: freedomwarrior998
Meanwhile, the officer and his brothers remain completely insulated from THEIR actions.
2 posted on
07/30/2010 8:48:40 AM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: freedomwarrior998
more people who run around calling people names like this should be done in court, course the likes of MSNBC and the far left would lose a lot of money
3 posted on
07/30/2010 8:51:02 AM PDT by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: freedomwarrior998
The only evidence at the brief trial was Hicks' testimony that he'd been embarrassed by Omar's words and a videotape of the January council meeting where Omar spoke. "He is acting no different than members of the Klan did years ago," Omar said at the meeting, referring to Hicks. "The only difference is that he and his other buddies have uniforms on now that provide them with legal cover as opposed to the white sheets. ... He's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time. Well, he finally has."
Lumsden called Omar to the witness stand, but Omar cited the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and did not testify.
"We didn't enter any evidence," Strelka said, "because it's my belief we didn't need to."
Another Roanoke officer sued a critic in 1995. In that case, an officer who was accused.
Funny, and here I thought that we had Freedom of Speech. Silly me, and a treasonous court.
6 posted on
07/30/2010 8:55:25 AM PDT by
Hodar
(Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
To: freedomwarrior998
There are no certainties in the law racket, but there are a few rules of thumb. When you have a bench trial in a civil case, the best interests of banks, insurance companies and the government will be vigilantly protected. A criminal trial to the bench is usually a slow guilty plea.
11 posted on
07/30/2010 9:01:04 AM PDT by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
To: freedomwarrior998
"He is acting no different than members of the Klan did years ago," Omar said at the meeting, referring to Hicks. "The only difference is that he and his other buddies have uniforms on now that provide them with legal cover as opposed to the white sheets. ... He's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time. Well, he finally has."Unless he can present facts to support those statements (and he can't, or he would have) how are those words not libelous???
14 posted on
07/30/2010 9:03:26 AM PDT by
Sooth2222
("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
To: freedomwarrior998
Can we add having him placed in the Town/Village stocks on the Public Square for 30 days?
15 posted on
07/30/2010 9:03:50 AM PDT by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: freedomwarrior998
How about Sherrod saying the Andrew Breitbart wants black people “back on the plantation”?
I hope he counter-sues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 posted on
07/30/2010 9:22:07 AM PDT by
Mr. K
(Physically unable to proofreed (<---oops! see?))
To: freedomwarrior998
31 posted on
07/30/2010 9:22:25 AM PDT by
Mobties
To: freedomwarrior998
All he would have had to do is preface his statements with the phrase “In my opinion.....” and it wouldn’t have been defamation. Expensive lesson in the law for him.
To: freedomwarrior998
Someone needs to put up a billboard reminding Grand Wizerd John Quigley that political speech is protected.
52 posted on
07/30/2010 3:01:07 PM PDT by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson