It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

page: 16
77
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mindpurge
 


That is a terrible plan. Violent crime comes with the more severe punishment so you might be throwing a lot of innocent people into really awful punishment. Also I would like to inform you that there are a lot of violent crimes that aren't all that violent. For example, selling a handgun you didn't know was stolen, is a violent crime really hard to prove your innocence there too. Actually any gun crime whether a shot was fired or not is a violent crime.




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
 


You mean conflicting eye witness accounts, for one of them talks about the dark hooded gunman running off.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


You must be trolling you come on here saying you know who did the shooting, yet you were not there, yet you have not seen footage of any of it. How do we know JLL did not have a body double.. How the hell do you know if the girl was not used as a shield? I'm sure who ever did the shooting was only trying to shoot the feds and Gifford if the little girl got shot it would be safe to assume someone was HOLDING HER in front of them while the shooting happened therefor letting the little 9 y/o girl get shot point blank in the chest.. Yes the little girl was used as a human shield. That's what it seems like.. Do you have proof otherwise?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


You must be trolling you come on here saying you know who did the shooting, yet you were not there, yet you have not seen footage of any of it. How do we know JLL did not have a body double.. How the hell do you know if the girl was not used as a shield? I'm sure who ever did the shooting was only trying to shoot the feds and Gifford if the little girl got shot it would be safe to assume someone was HOLDING HER in front of them while the shooting happened therefor letting the little 9 y/o girl get shot point blank in the chest.. Yes the little girl was used as a human shield. That's what it seems like.. Do you have proof otherwise?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
My brain hurts after reading all this...

Yes he deserves a trial. Yes he has his rights. Not everything is a conspiracy. We had better learn to come together in this Country. The times ahead are going to demand it. We will never really know what drives a crazy person. However, to hinge on his ever written word like he is some kind of "Cunning Linguist" (sorry I always wanted to use those words in a meaningful sentence). I just do not see it. He's 22 years old. I got socks older than that.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Reality is, he was tackled while he still had the hot gun in his hands and he's guilty.


Oh, you have some evidence to this effect? All the news I've seen indicates nobody ever saw a gun in his hand, that while he was subdued on the ground a gun was lying alternately on the ground by an old lady, and in the hand of the man subduing Loughner.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The real question will be ... is he culpable?


The real question for me here is were you born this gullible or did the vaccines do it to you? Have you been diagnosed with aspergers yet?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Guilty .. yes. Culpable? Dunno'.


Well, I guess we won't replace the legal system with you yet. You've got the conviction without evidence part down, but you really do need to take that leap of faith and assume everyone you accuse is as culpable as you claim they are guilty. Then we won't need courts at all, we'll just come to you for sentencing any time somebody is accused of a crime. I think yours is the brain that's misfiring, you're "convicting" this person in the absolute vacuum of evidence provided.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have to assume that he is not that callous or stupid, and is only trying to get me to snap on him.. I really believe that nobody can be that ignorant and pathetic at the same time.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Of course they do, but that is why we have a legal system, everyone's rights are supposed to be represented. However, we the public are not going to see any justice being done in this case, because nothing is what we think it is. I don't look at most of the crimes that make it to the national news, as being straight forward.


We agree there!!! Justice surely will not be done in this case. Jared has only one life to give via lethal injection and not 9.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoomoo
I always thought multiple witnesses would have counted as evidence, but these days I am not so sure.


None of the witnesses quoted by the media said they saw Loughner with a gun, neither one of them that I've seen witnessed the shooting.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I am pretty sure he may be guilty, but there are a lot of stuff that I do not know about yet.


On what do you base this surety other than the mass media telling you for days on end that he shot a dozen people and killed about half of them? Can you produce a single witness reporting him holding a gun in his hand?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Who knows, maybe he may win because of due process, or with the insanity defense?


Win what, you mean not be convicted of something he didn't do?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


The only proof I have is that the MSM media will think we are all ignorant morons after reading your posts.. Please stop talking to me. I do not hold one word you say in any degree of reality. Go troll somewhere else.. Try a thread that revolves around ink tests or fMRI's or something.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlautusSatire
People don't turn their face away from a gun when you point it at them, they watch the gun, and put their hands in front of their faces.


Happen often?

I just had some friends over and for the fun of it I walked up to each and just shoved my finger in their face. Each one flinched back and turned their head, leaving me pointing at their temple. How many times you been shot in the face?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
My brain hurts after reading all this...

Yes he deserves a trial. Yes he has his rights. Not everything is a conspiracy. We had better learn to come together in this Country. The times ahead are going to demand it. We will never really know what drives a crazy person. However, to hinge on his ever written word like he is some kind of "Cunning Linguist" (sorry I always wanted to use those words in a meaningful sentence). I just do not see it. He's 22 years old. I got socks older than that.


The problem with not everything being a conspiracy is: this one is.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisterCrowley
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Is it the shooters fault a 9 y/o got shot? NO it is who ever was watching her for not protecting her! I bet the little 9 y/o girl was used to deflect the bullets.. .



You are a dumbass. Possibly the biggest dumbass on this entire site.
Current ranking is 1.) You
2.) You
3.) You
4.) the cinic

Also I welcome the warning. This crowley guy is an asshole.
Yeah it is the shooters fault. Were you there? Wouldn't you assume this happened pretty fast? How could someone protect anyone really in a situation like this? Since you are so into conjecture what if one of the other victims was trying to protect her.

You joined like 5 days ago and your signature is "justice for jared loughner" that kinda screams troll.
edit on 13-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
 


You mean conflicting eye witness accounts, for one of them talks about the dark hooded gunman running off.


Slightly conflicting accounts are what actually proves truth in a court of law. You see, when all the witnesses tell the exact same story the defense attorney will object for "collusion".



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


i think u have left your senses somewhere.

how bout you hold your daughter in front of you like a shield and i put a bullet through her

and see if you get hit too?

would that satisfy your CSI sherlok hommie mind?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Yes he deserves a fair trial. i dont believe anyone would disagree with that. So OP point is proven. No one should be saying that he doesn't. Now we have a problem since the media has force fed us with "evidence" and people tend to believe what the media says. So assuming as a few are that the jury will go into this trial with an opinion before it starts, means that this wont be a fair trial. Correct? (that pretty much sums up the argument? )

So since that is the case how would one correct the problem? Let him off?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
He may be innocent until proven guilty IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, but in reality he is more than likely guilty.

OP, unless YOU PERSONALLY were there, you have no rhyme or reason to make claims of his guilt or innocence.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


clearly one delusional account of many rational ones after such a traumatizing event... The mind has a funny way of playing tricks during such life-changing events.... if this is even true to the extent you suggest!!
edit on 13-1-2011 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have to assume that he is not that callous or stupid, and is only trying to get me to snap on him.. I really believe that nobody can be that ignorant and pathetic at the same time.


sh*t, I thought you were that Crowley character......sorry for what I just edited out of this post.

eeks
edit on 1/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by MisterCrowley
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Is it the shooters fault a 9 y/o got shot? NO it is who ever was watching her for not protecting her! I bet the little 9 y/o girl was used to deflect the bullets.. .



You are a dumbass. Possibly the biggest dumbass on this entire site.
Current ranking is 1.) You
2.) You
3.) You
4.) the cinic

Also I welcome the warning. This guy is an asshole.
Yeah it is the shooters fault. Were you there? Wouldn't you assume this happened pretty fast? How could someone protect anyone really in a situation like this? Since you are so into conjecture what if one of the other victims was trying to protect her.


No, just a random troll, nothing more, nothing less. You could say the sky is blue and the random troll will say it's greenish-red and glittery. They come on forums usually to try and piss everyone off.



new topics




 
77
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join