Tweaker wrote:It has just come to light that the .gov retahds have claimed that Skidmark made racist comments and that all parties involved, save Skidmark are negroes.
As usual - THAT'S WAISSIS!
If that's all you got, that's what you bring.
Umm...where in any of the articles about this does it say that?
+1 Source?
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
-Winston Churchill
Mr. Poindexter said that he considered the offer to settle the civil claim as threatening (much as the contractor's supervisor considered Henick's finger "threatening"); Poindexter accused Henick of having made racial remarks to the contractor's supervisor. (Prior to that time, no one other than Henick knew that the security contractors on the pier, the sheriff and his deputies were black , as is the Commonwealth's Attorney. Henick hadn't thought it significant to mention it to anyone, and subsequently denies having said anything to anyone that could be construed as racially motivated.) We see the Commonwealth Attorney's injection of racial prejudice into this case as an unfortunate and inappropriate tactic.
Now is the time for all good men to get off their rusty dustys...
Sounds more to me that they know their case is weak and are looking to beef it up using the ever popular Al Sharpton method of " always offended" race card to garner some sympathy in the public arena,,,, makes for a distraction from the fact they have made a mistake.... I doubt they expected the level of support that Henick has received are attempting to use some Damage Control with a very old used up stand by,,,"The white Guy called me names",,,WAAAAHHH!!!
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
This tactic is as transparent as when liberals reflexively use it when they find themselves at a deficit of facts, logic or supporting evidence. I am so pleased that the technique has found itself wanting in my lifetime!
Officially outed waissists: Taggure, Allingeneral, Tweaker, VBShooter, Snaz, Jim, OakRidgeStars, Wylde, clayinva, Komrade Kreutz, scrubber3, Mindflaya'. All the kewl kids are waississ
Mr. Poindexter said that he considered the offer to settle the civil claim as threatening (much as the contractor's supervisor considered Henick's finger "threatening"); Poindexter accused Henick of having made racial remarks to the contractor's supervisor. (Prior to that time, no one other than Henick knew that the security contractors on the pier, the sheriff and his deputies were black , as is the Commonwealth's Attorney. Henick hadn't thought it significant to mention it to anyone, and subsequently denies having said anything to anyone that could be construed as racially motivated.) We see the Commonwealth Attorney's injection of racial prejudice into this case as an unfortunate and inappropriate tactic.
If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak. In the old common law days they use to throw out trials where a plaintiff accepted a plea bargain. The idea was that an innocent man had nothing to fear from the law and would accept a plea bargain only under threat and the state isn't suppose to be threatening its citizens. It as viewed was equally offensive for a guilty man to receive less than the law prescribed. All around, plea bargains were considered perversions of justice.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gunderwood wrote:
If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak.
Who is the they in your above?
It was originally reported that Poindexter made the offer, thus his team would be they. However, it has been corrected to say that the defendant made the offer. I haven't had time to track this closely, so I missed that correction.
However, the general point still stands, it just isn't applicable to this specific case. If the prosecutor offers to drop the charges in exchange for civil immunity, their case is weak.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gunderwood wrote:
If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak.
Who is the they in your above?
It was originally reported that Poindexter made the offer, thus his team would be they. However, it has been corrected to say that the defendant made the offer. I haven't had time to track this closely, so I missed that correction.
However, the general point still stands, it just isn't applicable to this specific case. If the prosecutor offers to drop the charges in exchange for civil immunity, their case is weak.
I agree so long as the they is meant to be the prosecutor. That's why I asked. I'm following this incident pretty closely and was aware that a blogger incorrectly wrote that the prosecutor rather than the defendant made the offer. The offer by the defendant was prudent and I think the prosecutor will regret not accepting it. Also, it was not a plea bargain as the defendant maintains that he is not guilty. The offer was made, I think, to give the prosecutor the opportunity to drop a bad case without risking subsequent related civil litigation placing the county at risk. It would have also saved the defendant a lot of money in legal expenses.
Competition is one of the "great levelers" of ego.
Just curious, but would anyone in this Forum done things differently than Skidmark did in this situation. Skidmark had a right to question the "command" to get out of the car and he did just that! Skidmark also had the right to question the VDOT workers authority to his supervisor but according to the posts and video, this went wrong very quickly and escalated from a "question of a lawful or unlawful order" to an "open carry" problem quickly! When the supervisor immediately covered for his subordinate without even being there, thats where the red flag should have gone up in my opinion. Clearly skidmark was in a losing debate at this point!
As a result, they, (VDOT and the Deputies) overwhelmingly ganged up on skidmark and brought the gun into play. Hopefully skidmark will be exonerated and perhaps rewarded for this encounter. Remember, most in authority don't like to be questioned whether they are right or wrong. I'm sure the rent a cop vdot mentality was threatened when they saw him carrying, which in turn led to the fabricated story by the accusers. I wish skidmark the best and hope the truth comes out in court. Pick and carefully choose your battles especially when open carrying.
Battles are usually not choosable and all of them need to be fought irregardless of the acts that started them,
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
OakRidgeStars wrote:I can't bring myself to second guess what he did. Now, as far as open carry goes, that's a different story. Or maybe a second thread.
I agree ORS, second guessing is not a good practice. A second thread is another good suggestion to discuss situations like this. Even better would be a bunch of enthusiasts like ourselves meeting someplace for to chat guns and discuss different scenerio situations like this and our rights pertaining to our priveleges, etc. Too bad we're spread all over the place in VA.
I see no reason to answer the door in the future when John Q. Law is knocking. You got a warrant, then I guess I'll be setting another place for tea. You don't, pound sand!
My audio recorder has been a hell of a cheap may to cover my ass. GET ONE!
Officially outed waissists: Taggure, Allingeneral, Tweaker, VBShooter, Snaz, Jim, OakRidgeStars, Wylde, clayinva, Komrade Kreutz, scrubber3, Mindflaya'. All the kewl kids are waississ
That's funny...I had no idea from reading the article that there were any "race" issues at all. If this Poindexter individual really is crying waissism, then it sounds to me like he needs to be fired as a Commonwealth Attorney. Now, just why is this person qualified to carry concealed and get drunk, when I'm not deemed qualified to drink a single glass of wine if I were to carry?
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
