I realize that this is The Pit, but I take it by your curt dismissal that you have no attempt at argument will overpower your desire just to be an asshole. Message received.
Did you actually LOOK at those photos, Bricker? There are two different people with the same name, one in Palm Beach (current age: 19) with arrests for marijuana sales near a school and then a probation violation, and another in Orange County (current age: 21) with the assault, DWI arrests, and so on.
Besides being different ages, they don’t look anything alike aside from being young and male.
Hey, Bricker is an ex-lawyer not an ex-person recognizer!
Well, hello Mr. Perry Mason! I’ll bet that works really well in court - coming up with surprise facts at trial that you had in your pocket all along. Bet the judge would kick your ass out of court.
Yeah, they weren’t pertinent until you couldn’t win the argument without 'em.
People have been asking you what you had up your sleeve. Guess it wasn’t pertinent then.
Dude, this isn’t a class, and this isn’t a test.
For most of us, a debate about some fairly obscure topic like this is a cooperative venture to a large extent. We get such facts as we can, and we debate the matter based on the facts at hand. OF COURSE if the facts turn out to be quite different than originally supposed, people will often change their positions based on the new facts - but it doesn’t make their arguments based on the old facts any less valid; the argument ‘given X then Y’ is still good even if ‘not X.’
That you let the debate proceed as long as you did before saying, ‘I happen to know ‘not X’’ and then pretend you’ve demolished anyone’s argument by demonstrating that, demonstrates nothing more than intellectual shallowness and immaturity. All you’ve done is establish that the argument should have started somewhere else.
You apparently could have pointed that out much closer to the start of the argument, so it could have started somewhere else. But you didn’t, just so you could play your silly ‘gotcha’ game. You just kinda wasted some of our precious time, but don’t think twice, it’s alright.
Given that you actually have to click on the guy’s face to get to the arrest records, you’d think he would have noticed that the person has an enormous frigging afro in one picture and closely-cropped hair in every other one. But I don’t possess his keen legal mind.
Well, I think #2 and #5 are the same guy, likely our hero. Close cropped in one, Afro the other.
Yeah, but the huge afro that sprouted between 12-18-10 and 5-3-11 should have been a tip-off to the intrepid researcher that it might be a good idea to look a bit more closely at the photos.
No, it’s just that I recognize the futility of debating how much value to society an arrest for marijuana possession has with a cadre of people that are convinced marijuana laws are themselves of no value to society. I am instead prepared to accept society’s extant judgment, expressed through our laws, and content to let you and your ilk wail in the wind.
Waaah!! Mean ol’ Bricker got more facts, ‘n’ stuff. Not fair!!!
My very first post on the subject attacked the one-sided nature of the story as presented. If that wasn’t enough to figure out that researching the validity of the story would be helpful, then you’re useless and should stick with MPSIMS.
I know what you mean. I laugh and laugh at the pit bull apologists every time another jurisdiction bans them. It’s fun being on the winning side.
eta:
Wrong facts, but nice one anyways. I guess.
I’d like to have an ilk. But my landlord won’t allow pets. He says the wailing annoys the other tenants.
Got ilk?
Thank you.
…and thank you, too.
If only I hadn’t been so stupid, basing everything I argued on the presumption that this kid was an utterly innocent lamb, frolicking amongst the daffodils! I mean, I just wouldn’t shut up about it, going on and on about what a model citizen this boy was…
Oh, sure, I made some mention of stuff like a poor use of resources to solve a trivial problem, but that was only cover, window dressing for my real thesis, the saintly demeanor and spotless Permanent Record of whats’his face.
But Bricker saw through the mere words and divined my true thesis, and destroyed it with the grace and civility that is the hallmark of his discourse.
Mortified. Bereft. Inconsolable. I only hope I can find the strength to go on. Maybe my son will let me play with his X-box, when he sees that my spirit is rent asunder…
No need. Can’t help it.
Oh, it’s fair. Just stupid.
I mean, I suppose that if we’re both in some thread like this in the future, I can put little ASSUMING THE FACTS OF THIS SITUATION DON’T DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THE FACTS WE HAVE ON HAND disclaimers at the beginning of each post, but it really seems kinda silly. Because we’re ALWAYS making that assumption, because what else do we have to go on besides the facts on hand?
Actually, what I figured was that, given that you continued to be an active participant in the thread, you would have shared any facts you came across that shed a different light on things.
I’d say “my bad,” but since the damning ‘facts’ you’ve come across may be about some other guy, it apparently might only be my bad in the more limited sense that I thought you had some smidgen of honesty.
Which reminds me:
I’ve used that phrase a healthy number of times over the years, but we seem to have entirely different meanings for it.
I use it to say to another poster, “I am not obligated to dig up facts that would make your case for you.”
You seem to use it to say, “I am not obligated to bring to light facts I know that would reveal the full strength of my own case to the person I’m arguing with, until such time as I’m losing the argument without those facts.”
And you’re right - you’re under no such obligation.
That doesn’t make it any less a dick move. People are not obligated to not be dicks.
It also, of course, helps if the facts are not totally incorrect. Which I wonder if Bricker is ever going to acknowledge.
Bricker, do you stand by your statement that this refers to Justin Gilbert Laboy , born 2-19-92? And while you are at it, can you give us the legal definition of “defamation.”
Until newme just posted, I wondered if anyone besides you and me were going to acknowledge it. Seems like Bricker and elucidator are locked in “only see opposing partisan” mode.
BTW, I checked the charges on all the pics except the blank one. The Afro guy has a drug charge, consistently clean shaved head car stealing guy does not. So only Afro guy can be the one under discussion here.