XPost: alt.government.abuse, nyc.general, nyc.politics 
 From: ob110ob@att.net 
  
 On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:35:37 GMT, Phil 
  wrote: 
  
 >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:14:56 GMT, slim  wrote: 
 > 
 >> 
 >> 
 >>Obwon wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:29:35 GMT, Phil 
 >>>  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:11:42 GMT, slim  wrote: 
 >>> > 
 >>> > 
 >>> >>> In order for a DAT to be issued, the police officer must personally 
 >>> >>> witness the crime being committed. 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >>Alleged crime. You may plead not guilty to a DAT. 
 >>> > 
 >>> >So, then, until a person is convicted of a crime, he is not a 
 >>> >criminal.  Is this what you're saying? 
 >>> > 
 >>> > 
 >>> >Phil 
 >>> > 
 >>>   What country do you come from?  Why would you think 
 >>> otherwise?  You seem to think that simply because a 
 >>> policeman alleges that he witnessed a crime, that's it? 
 >>> It's a conviction?  No wonder you're such a staunch 
 >>> supporter of Giuliani, you have no concept of how American 
 >>> law works or why it is arranged that way! 
 >>> 
 >>Phil and his ilk are those who profess that they "have nothing 
 >>to hide" andn that lets them suspend the Constitution, the 
 >>Bill of Rights and the American Way for everyone else. 
 >> 
 >>No wonder Phil is such a big Giuliani fan, since Rudy tries 
 >>to make himself bigger than life every chance he gets! 
 > 
 >I'll have to remember this the next time you guys say Bush, Cheney and 
 >Giuliani are crooks and should be in jail.  After all, they haven't 
 >been arrested and charged with anything. 
 > 
 >It's good to know that you guys take OFR's side when his posts include 
 >how police kill innocent people.  You know the ones, when police 
 >arrive at a crime in progress and must return fire at criminals 
 >(alledged criminals) in self defense.  After all, the dead were never 
 >convicted in court. 
 > 
 > 
 >Phil 
 > 
   Look Phil, you've displayed your gross ignorance here on 
 usenet, time after time after time.  None of the above gets 
 you off the hook!  In fact, if you re-read what you've 
 posted in ignorance, you've obviated any right for yourself 
 to claim that we're wrong in calling for anyone's head 
 prematurely! 
  
   Besides, in case you haven't noticed, though we call for 
 their heads on a platter, we are cognizant of their rights 
 to trial.  But first we need to get the process rolling, so 
 to speak, so a little hyperbole might go a long way towards 
 getting things started. 
  
   Your best bet, instead of trying to spin things your way, 
 is to come up with well researched articles and generally 
 accepted facts that tend to prove against the claims being 
 made.  Obviously, if you can't understand the laws of the 
 country you are living under, you, yourself, are hardly a 
 source of credible argument, opinion and/or other 
 speculations. 
  
   Obwon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)