Maybe in your day...
Tue Sep 5, 2017 4:29pm

Our training on how to handle unlawful orders quite clearly said that following orders was in NO WAY an excuse or a mitigating factor...

AGAIN, as I said, a JURY might be more sympathetic, but the law does not excuse your behavior based on just following orders. Nuremburg made that amply clear.

  • How strange...HeavyHemi, Tue Sep 5 4:08pm
    Passive aggressive as per usual. It also recognized the mitigating factor of following the orders of a superior. I'm sorry you have such a difficult time processing anything even remotely outside on... more
    • Maybe in your day... — Sprout, Tue Sep 5 4:29pm
      • You're getting upset because?HeavyHemi, Tue Sep 5 4:48pm
        And again, that you try to limit the discussion to ONLY what you consider is just another example of your limitations. We're not discussing crimes against humanity or war crimes kid. I realize that... more
        • Thanks for so conclusively provingSprout, Tue Sep 5 6:33pm
          my point.
          • 'conclusively proving your point'? You either read my post and decided you had no argument or, you didn't read my post and just pitched a fit.
            • If you read your own post you wouldSprout, Wed Sep 6 8:49am
              realize that it conclusively supports the position I have been taking all along. But, as usual, you are done.
              • Actually, NO, it proves you're mistaken.Sia☺giah, Sun Sep 10 11:44pm
              • Clearly you think so.HeavyHemi, Wed Sep 6 9:12am
                Clearly you can read where your claim of absolutely no defense is objectively false. The post proves you are fundamentally dishonest. It sure is alarming how Trump Troopers have adopted the style of... more
                • Take Hawaii for example. Hawaii has only three species of native Lepidoptera- two butterflies and one moth. Hawaii has only three species of native orchid, and nothing to write home about. Colorado's ... more
                  • In what way does this conflict withSprout, Wed Sep 6 11:28am
                    Sprout His post in your opinion, with respect to the case we have been discussing? Obeying orders is not a legal defense Mon Sep 4, 2017 4:51pm from a strictly legal standpoint.... more
                    • said could be used. I even pinpointed your failure to address them in your tantrum. Your assertion there is never a legal defense is false. I cited them. STOP LYING.
                      • And to FURTHER clarify for you...Sprout, Wed Sep 6 12:53pm
                        The officer was presented ON THE SCENE with the documents showing he had no authority to force the blood draw. So, he cannot claim ignorance. I would think it wasn't that hard and didn't believe you... more
                        • Once again, you try to change the argument to your own tiny specific example instead of the actual discussion. I cited examples using your standard provided exceptions. You are in fact wrong.
                        • I described him as a student differently. Less politically correct. I believe I wrote a sneaky little runt. Some things don't change. Same with defenses. When JP was sixteen, he looked twelve, and... more
                          • Hahaha😀. I have to guffaw.PH👁👁EY (JP), Sun Sep 10 11:39pm
                            That describes me to a "T." Though I was never a runt. I was so immature my elementary school held me back a year in third grade. I did not have pubic hair until 17. And today at 72 I look 60.... more
                          • I was asked a question about a LEGAL defense of "obeying orders", and addressed it utilizing the example of the Nuremburg trials clearly showing that obeying orders to commit violations was not... more
                            • Your argument is sound.PH💉💉EY, Sun Sep 10 11:44pm
                              So why is it so difficult for another to grasp the simplicity of your points?
                            • I asked the question. You don't get to change it to what YOU decide. I cited examples where in theory a defense exists. You asserted it never does. You are in fact wrong and your concession they DO... more
                              • Not so fast:PH🗣🗣EY, Sun Sep 10 11:48pm
                                Your manner of discussion is more akin to a bum's rush ( or is it bum rush.). You cannot just dismiss a debator with the wave of an imperial finger wag or flippant hand gesture. The buzzer has... more
                                • Contrarian, I have asked you nicely.HeavyHemi, Mon Sep 11 12:56am
                                  Stop it now.
                                  • Stop what?PH😵😵EY, Mon Sep 11 7:41pm
                                    You mystify me. I offer an opinion. It's not a particularly nice opinion. But I felt you were being haughty. Sorry if you are offended. Forgive me.
                                  • LOL....Sprout, Mon Sep 11 8:43am
                                    And what will you do if he doesn't? Wave your finger imperiously again? Or perhaps you will taunt someone as second time... LOL Whiner.
                                    • Are you 12?HeavyHemi, Tue Sep 12 3:35am
                                      You posted your tantrum because you're upset that you you keep losing simple arguments. Grow up kid.
                      • LOL... aparently you didn't read themSprout, Wed Sep 6 12:51pm
                        because they clearly did not apply in this case. Or were you told to obey unlawful orders?