BoxRec

Lenny Cravats wrote:

sucracristo wrote:, in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials
in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves.
crazy, hunh?

Well, you don't do it very well. In fact, if Tarkus is from Western Europe it's more likely that his country have a much fairer system.

Fairer? A person is either guilty of the crime or not. Mistakes can be made and innocent people can be sent up anywhere.

punchoutsb wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:

sucracristo wrote:, in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials
in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves.
crazy, hunh?

Well, you don't do it very well. In fact, if Tarkus is from Western Europe it's more likely that his country have a much fairer system.

Fairer? A person is either guilty of the crime or not. Mistakes can be made and innocent people can be sent up anywhere.

Fairer, yes. Impartial. Equally representative. However you wish to describe it.

punchoutsb wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:

sucracristo wrote:, in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials
in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves.
crazy, hunh?

Well, you don't do it very well. In fact, if Tarkus is from Western Europe it's more likely that his country have a much fairer system.

Fairer? A person is either guilty of the crime or not. Mistakes can be made and innocent people can be sent up anywhere.

haven't you heard? europe is unicorns and rainbows.

Lenny Cravats wrote:
Fairer, yes. Impartial. Equally representative. However you wish to describe it.

Equally representative in what way? Arrest an Asian so we need to find a white guy to arrest so it's equal? Those who commit the crimes are punished. Some are missed.

punchoutsb wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:
Fairer, yes. Impartial. Equally representative. However you wish to describe it.

Equally representative in what way? Arrest an Asian so we need to find a white guy to arrest so it's equal? Those who commit the crimes are punished. Some are missed.

A fairer judicial system, the populations access to justice. I'm not sure why you don't understand.

I'm not going to do the US Vs the rest of the world rubbish, but when someone says to someone living in Europe;
'in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves. crazy, hunh?'
It's only fair that it is pointed out that your judicial system is ranked below the majority of Western and Northern Europe.

Lenny Cravats wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:
Fairer, yes. Impartial. Equally representative. However you wish to describe it.

Equally representative in what way? Arrest an Asian so we need to find a white guy to arrest so it's equal? Those who commit the crimes are punished. Some are missed.

A fairer judicial system, the populations access to justice. I'm not sure why you don't understand.

I'm not going to do the US Vs the rest of the world rubbish, but when someone says to someone living in Europe;
'in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves. crazy, hunh?'
It's only fair that it is pointed out that your judicial system is ranked below the majority of Western and Northern Europe.

hmm, because i specifically responded to someone who said it is ok to murder your cousin in the usa
whereas in most of the wold it is a tragedy. taylor didn't murder anyone, and wasn't even charged with
attempting to murder anyone. my statement specifically addressed the process that takes place whereby
someone is arrested, charged, tried, and convicted or released in this country. because you shot someone
doesn't automatically make you guilty of a crime. somewhere along the line, you developed a hate inside
you and it makes you spring like a cat without thinking. i never said anything about how corrupt italy, greece,
portugal, spain, and many other western european countries are and all the amnesty international reports
on them. i never mentioned any of that. you just have a problem with someone saying let's wait until
someone had their day in court. the guy might have deserved a couple warning shots to the kneecaps.
maybe he had a few overdue library books or something. let's hear jermain's side. that's all

sucracristo wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Equally representative in what way? Arrest an Asian so we need to find a white guy to arrest so it's equal? Those who commit the crimes are punished. Some are missed.

A fairer judicial system, the populations access to justice. I'm not sure why you don't understand.

I'm not going to do the US Vs the rest of the world rubbish, but when someone says to someone living in Europe;
'in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves. crazy, hunh?'
It's only fair that it is pointed out that your judicial system is ranked below the majority of Western and Northern Europe.

hmm, because i specifically responded to someone who said it is ok to murder your cousin in the usa
whereas in most of the wold it is a tragedy. taylor didn't murder anyone, and wasn't even charged with
attempting to murder anyone. my statement specifically addressed the process that takes place whereby
someone is arrested, charged, tried, and convicted or released in this country. because you shot someone
doesn't automatically make you guilty of a crime. somewhere along the line, you developed a hate inside
you and it makes you spring like a cat without thinking. i never said anything about how corrupt italy, greece,
portugal, spain, and many other western eurpoean countries are and all the amnesty international reports
on them. i never mentioned any of that. you just have a problem with someone saying let's wait until
someone had their day in court. the guy might have deserved a couple warning shots to the kneecaps.
maybe he had a few overdue library books or something. let's hear jermain's side. that's all

Eh? The poster you quoted was making a half-joking remark about being able to shoot unarmed men and not face prosecution. In which, of course, he has a point - America is renowned for disproportionate use of firearms and lack of prosecution for doing so.
The point of challenging your judicial system was in response to you;
A-) taking the initial post too seriously
B-) trying to insinuate the US is a beacon of fair judiciary as a fair trial would appear 'crazy' to an outsider, which is of course bollocks.

you developed a hate inside you and it makes you spring like a cat without thinking.

I don't quite know how to respond to this other than to say, what the fvck are you on about, like?

the truth and reality is JT ducked Soliman. He knew he would never win. He wasn't the type of guy to feign an injury so he thought, F It.

He knew in his heart he could not beat soliman.

Lenny Cravats wrote: Eh? The poster you quoted was making a half-joking remark about being able to shoot unarmed men and not face prosecution

someone shooting someone else, whether armed or not, and you don't know
anything about what happened and who had what, is not necessarily a crime.
you speak as if it is a case of res ipsa loquitor but it isn't that simple.
my comment was at the very least as sarcastic as the one presented to me.
your comments are not sarcastic, though. you comments are pure douchebaggery
and ignorant. you wait until the hearings and trial before you find out what happened.
whether or not someone gets prosecuted for shooting someone, armed or unarmed,
depends on the circumstances. if someone has a valid reason for pulling trigger, then
they might not be prosecuted. often they are prosecuted and are found not guilty
unanimously by a jury at trial. very often the story that is presented by some people
at first does not match the facts as they come out, about 100% of the time when sharpton
is involved. you read more into what i said than was there. i said wait until the facts come out.
if shooting innocent people turns out to be jermain's hobby, maybe along with narcotrafficking,
he will go to prison.

sucracristo wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote: Eh? The poster you quoted was making a half-joking remark about being able to shoot unarmed men and not face prosecution

someone shooting someone else, whether armed or not, and you don't know
anything about what happened and who had what, is not necessarily a crime.
you speak as if it is a case of res ipsa loquitor but it isn't that simple.
my comment was at the very least as sarcastic as the one presented to me.
your comments are not sarcastic, though. you comments are pure douchebaggery
and ignorant. you wait until the hearings and trial before you find out what happened.
whether or not someone gets prosecuted for shooting someone, armed or unarmed,
depends on the circumstances. if someone has a valid reason for pulling trigger, then
they might not be prosecuted. often they are prosecuted and are found not guilty
unanimously by a jury at trial. very often the story that is presented by some people
at first does not match the facts as they come out, about 100% of the time when sharpton
is involved. you read more into what i said than was there. i said wait until the facts come out.
if shooting innocent people turns out to be jermain's hobby, maybe along with narcotrafficking,
he will go to prison.

WHY ARE YOU TYPING LIKE THAT!? It's fornicating annoying and hard to read . Are you bnovelist ?

Lenny Cravats wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:
Fairer, yes. Impartial. Equally representative. However you wish to describe it.

Equally representative in what way? Arrest an Asian so we need to find a white guy to arrest so it's equal? Those who commit the crimes are punished. Some are missed.

A fairer judicial system, the populations access to justice. I'm not sure why you don't understand.

I'm not going to do the US Vs the rest of the world rubbish, but when someone says to someone living in Europe;
'in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves. crazy, hunh?'
It's only fair that it is pointed out that your judicial system is ranked below the majority of Western and Northern Europe.

There are some cultures in the US where accessing a police force is frowned upon...it doesn't mean they don't have access.

sucracristo wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote: Eh? The poster you quoted was making a half-joking remark about being able to shoot unarmed men and not face prosecution

someone shooting someone else, whether armed or not, and you don't know
anything about what happened and who had what, is not necessarily a crime.
you speak as if it is a case of res ipsa loquitor but it isn't that simple.
my comment was at the very least as sarcastic as the one presented to me.
your comments are not sarcastic, though. you comments are pure douchebaggery
and ignorant. you wait until the hearings and trial before you find out what happened.
whether or not someone gets prosecuted for shooting someone, armed or unarmed,
depends on the circumstances. if someone has a valid reason for pulling trigger, then
they might not be prosecuted. often they are prosecuted and are found not guilty
unanimously by a jury at trial. very often the story that is presented by some people
at first does not match the facts as they come out, about 100% of the time when sharpton
is involved. you read more into what i said than was there. i said wait until the facts come out.
if shooting innocent people turns out to be jermain's hobby, maybe along with narcotrafficking,
he will go to prison.

So this response;

yeah, in the USA we actually investigate stuff and give people trials
in front of their peers and people have a right to defend themselves.
crazy, hunh? please don't turn this into some pussy thread about your
half baked politics. some people deserve to get shot

was sarcastic, then?

You're right, I haven't made any sarcastic comments - I merely challenged your inferred assertion about the 'unique' legitimacy of the US judiciary - there's no sarcasm to be had there, even if I tried.

As for the rest of the post, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's meandering somewhat.
What has Sharpton got to do with anything? What is douchebaggery? How am I ignorant?

Lenny Cravats and others
Thanks for defending my posts and a common sense in general and doing it so eloquently. However it is useless to try engage in a civilized discussion someone so infantile and irrational. Thats why I gave up as soon as I heard his nation chauvinism inspired crass commentary.

Maybe his cousin is a boxing fan and took a bullet for us all so the fight would be called off.

He's a fornicating hero & deserves a medal

crusader wrote:Taylor has been arrested for supposedly shooting his cousin following an altercation.

http://www.BS.com/jermain-tayl ... sin--81476

Lord those eyes look totally dead.... Looks like a zombie or straight up crackhead

cold187 wrote:the truth and reality is JT ducked Soliman. He knew he would never win. He wasn't the type of guy to feign an injury so he thought, F It.

He knew in his heart he could not beat soliman.

And the 2014 Most Creative Way to Duck a Guy in Boxing Award goes to Jermain Taylor.

reggaereggae wrote:

crusader wrote:Taylor has been arrested for supposedly shooting his cousin following an altercation.

http://www.BS.com/jermain-tayl ... sin--81476

Lord those eyes look totally dead.... Looks like a zombie or straight up crackhead

Does he have a tattoo of a chain around his neck

Apparently he's allowed to fight.

http://www.BS.com/jermain-tayl ... ght--81495

crusader wrote:Apparently he's allowed to fight.

http://www.BS.com/jermain-tayl ... ght--81495

I am actually shocked that the fight will go on as scheduled.

As there is with everything else the media reports I'm thinking there is more to this story than the media is reporting.

The judge wouldn't allow this if he/she thought Taylor is a dangerous criminal.
It seems like from the article that he may have justification, like self defense. There are certainly a lot of missing details, as the reports have been vague.

Reading elsewhere that his cousin and another man entered Taylor's property, Taylor's wife called the police. Taylor told the men to leave, then shot his cousin as he was leaving.
This isn't official, of course.

Just because his cousin did not have a gun when they found him several blocks away after the shooting at a store parking lot does not mean that he didn't have a gun at Taylor's home.
There is def more to the story.

I agree with others, simply not enough information available yet to try and make any sense of this. The truth will come out, until then only those who where present during the event know what happened. The only thing Taylor is guilty of at the moment is looking like $hit in a mugshot

I like the sound of giving someone a couple of warning shots in the kneecaps; I wanna go to a party with sugarchristo and they better play the music I like.