Daniel Adkins case - Page 3

The Central Scrutinizer · 31st May 2012, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

The name of the shooter has been released - Cordell Jude.

If only someone had seen him pull out a gun and said "Hey Jude, don't make it bad", this whole thing could have been avoided.

The Central Scrutinizer · 31st May 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tin/55208980/1

So why has the shooter still not been arrested? I really don't understand what the police are waiting for. What is up with this case?

Maybe for the same reason you haven't been arrested. The police don't arrest people unless they think they, in consultation with the DA, have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.

fuelair · 31st May 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tin/55208980/1

So why has the shooter still not been arrested? I really don't understand what the police are waiting for. What is up with this case?

As much as I hate to say this (sort of), being a gun owner and supporting stand your ground laws (and open carry laws), while I do not know enough about what happened (and what evidence (the real kind) is available to the police I know I would not shoot someone until I could see they were pulling a clearly identifiable weapon. But that is not quite what the laws say - also, the way Florida law (moving to the TW case) used to work-the booklets they sent us explained that getting hit a couple of times did not justify shooting - so you would be looking at a likely trial if you did that. BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court.

That evidence may just not be there.

Xulld · 1st June 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

As much as I hate to say this (sort of), being a gun owner and supporting stand your ground laws (and open carry laws), while I do not know enough about what happened (and what evidence (the real kind) is available to the police I know I would not shoot someone until I could see they were pulling a clearly identifiable weapon. But that is not quite what the laws say - also, the way Florida law (moving to the TW case) used to work-the booklets they sent us explained that getting hit a couple of times did not justify shooting - so you would be looking at a likely trial if you did that. BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court.

That evidence may just not be there.

This is where I stand. I really cant imagine shooting someone in the situation presented by the media. I hope either one of two things occurs. Evidence of some kind of attack is just not being presented by the media, or this guy gets arrested and convicted.

Draca · 1st June 2012, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Maybe for the same reason you haven't been arrested. The police don't arrest people unless they think they, in consultation with the DA, have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.

The shooter takes Daniel Adkins life and doesn't even have to face an accounting in court? What is messed up here is that Cordell Jude should have to prove he had reasonable grounds to kill someone for self defense. The State shouldn't have to prove that he didn't have grounds. That may not be how the Make My Day law works, but it is extremely disturbing that an arrest has not been made almost 2 months later in this case.

What evidence is there that Daniel Adkins was a threat? There is no weapon, no damage to his car, there is nothing. It is not justice for a family to lose a member of their family, for a man to lose his life and the shooter doesn't pay for their crime, giving the unproven reason that the person killed posed a threat to them. This in not justice.

Does the SYG laws really give more rights to a person not to feel threatened then for someone else not to be killed?

Draca · 1st June 2012, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court.

That evidence may just not be there.

What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?

Draca · 1st June 2012, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Xulld

This is where I stand. I really cant imagine shooting someone in the situation presented by the media. I hope either one of two things occurs. Evidence of some kind of attack is just not being presented by the media, or this guy gets arrested and convicted.

I agree. Justice can't just let someone be killed unjustifiably. There needs to be accountability to the person that lost their life.

Cylinder · 1st June 2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

What do the police need evidence of?

A crime.

Originally Posted by Draca

They have proof that someone was shot dead.

That's close. Now they just have to get evidence on who did the shooting and if the act violated a law.

Originally Posted by Draca

Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?

Because - as the single, core feature of our justice system - a person suspected of a crime does not have to prove his innocence. The government has to prove his actions were unlawful. It's the same reason that you don't have to prove you didn't shoot Mr. Adkins.

BStrong · 1st June 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?

From a legal standpoint, no matter what crime is alleged, it's up to the prosecuter to:

1) Prove a crime has been committed.

2) Prove the accused committed the act.

No individual can be compelled to apear in court and prove they didn't commit a criminal act - the Fifth Amendment - it's the job of the defense to disprove the prosecuter's case against their client.

Draca · 1st June 2012, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

A crime.

A man has been shot dead. That should be a crime unless proven otherwise. The shooter imo should have to prove it was a justifiable murder.

Quote:

That's close. Now they just have to get evidence on who did the shooting and if the act violated a law.

The person who did the shooting in not in dispute. They fully admitted to doing the shooting. The State imo should be defending the rights of the murdered person. They had a right to their own life. If someone takes that right away they should have to prove they had reason. Cordell Jude is claiming SYG, MMD, reasons. He should have to prove those reasons. This is completey messed up that a man is dead and the shooter can claim be frightened by a dog leash as a reason to take someone's life.

Quote:

Because - as the single, core feature of our justice system - a person suspected of a crime does not have to prove his innocence. The government has to prove his actions were unlawful. It's the same reason that you don't have to prove you didn't shoot Mr. Adkins.

I disagree. He DID murder someone. At this point he should have to prove he did so lawfully. He absolutely should have to prove his innocence after killing someone. The State imo should be taking the side of the person who had the right NOT to be killed. I agree that the government has to prove his actions were unlawful. The government should do that by prosecuting him in a court of law.

Draca · 1st June 2012, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

From a legal standpoint, no matter what crime is alleged, it's up to the prosecuter to:

1) Prove a crime has been committed.

2) Prove the accused committed the act.

No individual can be compelled to apear in court and prove they didn't commit a criminal act - the Fifth Amendment - it's the job of the defense to disprove the prosecuter's case against their client.

1) A man has been murdered.

2) They know who did it.

They already know he murdered someone. That is a crime. The state should be prosecuting him under the law and he of course has the right to defend himself in court. Daniel Adkins has rights also. Cordell Jude took away all of them.

The more I learn about these stand your ground laws the more I am becoming against them. It is unbelievable to me that there is even a question whether this man should be arrested or not based on the story given so far.

Cylinder · 1st June 2012, 11:19 PM

So police should be arrested for kidnapping on every arrest and then be able to prove that the action didn't violate laws?

Pharmacist and controlled substances?

What about if I sold you a car, then report it as stolen?

Draca · 1st June 2012, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

So police should be arrested for kidnapping on every arrest and then be able to prove that the action didn't violate laws?

Pharmacist and controlled substances?

What about if I sold you a car, then report it as stolen?

Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?

Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability.

Cylinder · 1st June 2012, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Draca

Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder?

No. There is a difference between kill and murder. One is neccessarily a crime. The other is not.

Originally Posted by Draca

Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable.

Yes. That's what they have to do, prove that a crime was committed.

Originally Posted by Draca

That quite frankly is ridiculous.

No. It's a core freedom.

Originally Posted by Draca

How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force.

I'm confused. How can you claim it was murder without actual proof? I mean, do we convict on your sense of emotion alone or do we do some sort of opinion poll on the matter. Maybe we should construct some framework where the government claims a crime is committed and then we could set up a series of tests to see if the government's claims are valid and then proceed. That would be cool.

Originally Posted by Draca

These SYG laws are reversing accountability.

No. The government has always been under the same burden.

BStrong · 3rd June 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Draca

1) A man has been murdered.

2) They know who did it.

They already know he murdered someone. That is a crime. The state should be prosecuting him under the law and he of course has the right to defend himself in court. Daniel Adkins has rights also. Cordell Jude took away all of them.

The more I learn about these stand your ground laws the more I am becoming against them. It is unbelievable to me that there is even a question whether this man should be arrested or not based on the story given so far.

Bolded: They know that an individual has been killed.

Whether or not it will be determined to be murder has not yet been decided by the prosecuters office.

Let me relate an anecdote.

There was dashboard camera footage from a LEA that showed an officer pull up the vehicle behind a pedestrian walking away from the patrol vehicle - the officer immediately opened fire on the pedestrian, shooting him in the back.

Horrible! officer kills innocent pedestrian w/o cause!

Until you see the camera footage from the first patrol vehicle on the scene, that showed the pedestrian firing at the officer in that first vehicle, hitting the officer and then calmly turning his back and walking away.

Until the whole story is laid out, take the "facts" with a grain of salt.

BStrong · 3rd June 2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Draca

Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?

Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability.

Are you unaware of the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder?

The taking of life can be determined by prosecuters and investigators to be any of those three general definitions.

If an individual is known to be the actor in the incident, the law enforcement agency jurisdiction where the incident took place will collect evidence, present same to the prosecuter, who will then present that evidence to the grand jury, who will either indict, or not (no-bill)

SYG doesn't change any of that.

No individual can be legally compelled to testify against themselves, so your assertions to the contrary that "murder" is somehow different and SYG is the cause is incorrect.

ponderingturtle · 5th June 2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Are you unaware of the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder?

The taking of life can be determined by prosecuters and investigators to be any of those three general definitions.

If an individual is known to be the actor in the incident, the law enforcement agency jurisdiction where the incident took place will collect evidence, present same to the prosecuter, who will then present that evidence to the grand jury, who will either indict, or not (no-bill).

Yep as a tard with a dog he had it coming.

Xulld · 5th June 2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep as a tard with a dog he had it coming.

Wow what a messed up thing to say!

PhantomWolf · 5th June 2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Wow what a messed up thing to say!

Well he was, he shouldn't have yelled at someone while holding a dog leash.

I've learned so much about life here. It's permissable to attack and beat up people for following you, and to shoot them for yelling at you while holding a dog leash. Sort of glad that things don't work this way over here.

Xulld · 7th June 2012, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Well he was, he shouldn't have yelled at someone while holding a dog leash.

I've learned so much about life here. It's permissable to attack and beat up people for following you, and to shoot them for yelling at you while holding a dog leash. Sort of glad that things don't work this way over here.

Ohh, yea . . . sure . . . I learn lots of things from hyperbole, just not facts about life, more about those that use it and misrepresent others opinions.

The Central Scrutinizer · 7th June 2012, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?

The police should just round up the usual suspects like they used to in the gangster pictures.

Draca · 27th June 2012, 10:48 AM

A Citizen's Petition to see Cordell Jude arrested for the death of Daniel Adkins:

http://lawprisms.com/pub/cites/In_re_Daniel_Adkins.pdf

Make sure to read the part where the Lying Liars Cordell Jude and his girlfriend Ronisha lie about seeing a 3 foot long wooden bat as wide as a water bottle.

After detectives tell Jude no bat was found, he then says it might have been a dog leash or his hands. :/

Draca · 30th July 2012, 07:36 PM

Finally! After more than three months Cordell Lamar Jude, the shooter of Daniel Adkins, has been indicted for 2nd degree murder.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19...-bell-shooting

http://www.kpho.com/story/19131780/p...nix-drive-thru

WildCat · 30th July 2012, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

Finally! After more than three months Cordell Lamar Jude, the shooter of Daniel Adkins, has been indicted for 2nd degree murder.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19...-bell-shooting

http://www.kpho.com/story/19131780/p...nix-drive-thru

"Two weeks ago, Jude was arrested for marijuana possession and having a gun in his car. Police say two guys in his car had just committed a drive-by and Jude was giving them a ride. He told police he had just met the guys.

Jude also told police he didn't know marijuana was illegal. Now that Jude is facing a second degree murder charge, the Adkins' family just hopes he shows up for court."

Draca · 30th July 2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Two weeks ago, Jude was arrested for marijuana possession and having a gun in his car. Police say two guys in his car had just committed a drive-by and Jude was giving them a ride. He told police he had just met the guys.

Jude also told police he didn't know marijuana was illegal. Now that Jude is facing a second degree murder charge, the Adkins' family just hopes he shows up for court."

Can you imagine the stink if Jude had been the shooter in a drive-by in the last 3 months and someone died. I do not understand at all why it took more than 3 months to arrest the man. Even now they leave it up to him to show up to court. He should have been arrested and bail set.

31st May 2012, 02:48 PM	#81
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Draca The name of the shooter has been released - Cordell Jude. If only someone had seen him pull out a gun and said "Hey Jude, don't make it bad", this whole thing could have been avoided.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

31st May 2012, 02:49 PM	#82
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Draca http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tin/55208980/1 So why has the shooter still not been arrested? I really don't understand what the police are waiting for. What is up with this case? Maybe for the same reason you haven't been arrested. The police don't arrest people unless they think they, in consultation with the DA, have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

31st May 2012, 03:54 PM	#83
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Draca http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tin/55208980/1 So why has the shooter still not been arrested? I really don't understand what the police are waiting for. What is up with this case? As much as I hate to say this (sort of), being a gun owner and supporting stand your ground laws (and open carry laws), while I do not know enough about what happened (and what evidence (the real kind) is available to the police I know I would not shoot someone until I could see they were pulling a clearly identifiable weapon. But that is not quite what the laws say - also, the way Florida law (moving to the TW case) used to work-the booklets they sent us explained that getting hit a couple of times did not justify shooting - so you would be looking at a likely trial if you did that. BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court. That evidence may just not be there.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

1st June 2012, 09:48 AM	#84
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,125	Originally Posted by fuelair As much as I hate to say this (sort of), being a gun owner and supporting stand your ground laws (and open carry laws), while I do not know enough about what happened (and what evidence (the real kind) is available to the police I know I would not shoot someone until I could see they were pulling a clearly identifiable weapon. But that is not quite what the laws say - also, the way Florida law (moving to the TW case) used to work-the booklets they sent us explained that getting hit a couple of times did not justify shooting - so you would be looking at a likely trial if you did that. BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court. That evidence may just not be there. This is where I stand. I really cant imagine shooting someone in the situation presented by the media. I hope either one of two things occurs. Evidence of some kind of attack is just not being presented by the media, or this guy gets arrested and convicted.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus

1st June 2012, 10:37 PM	#85
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Maybe for the same reason you haven't been arrested. The police don't arrest people unless they think they, in consultation with the DA, have enough evidence to obtain a conviction. The shooter takes Daniel Adkins life and doesn't even have to face an accounting in court? What is messed up here is that Cordell Jude should have to prove he had reasonable grounds to kill someone for self defense. The State shouldn't have to prove that he didn't have grounds. That may not be how the Make My Day law works, but it is extremely disturbing that an arrest has not been made almost 2 months later in this case. What evidence is there that Daniel Adkins was a threat? There is no weapon, no damage to his car, there is nothing. It is not justice for a family to lose a member of their family, for a man to lose his life and the shooter doesn't pay for their crime, giving the unproven reason that the person killed posed a threat to them. This in not justice. Does the SYG laws really give more rights to a person not to feel threatened then for someone else not to be killed?
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org Last edited by Draca; 1st June 2012 at 10:46 PM.

1st June 2012, 10:40 PM	#86
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by fuelair BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court. That evidence may just not be there. What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

1st June 2012, 10:43 PM	#87
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by Xulld This is where I stand. I really cant imagine shooting someone in the situation presented by the media. I hope either one of two things occurs. Evidence of some kind of attack is just not being presented by the media, or this guy gets arrested and convicted. I agree. Justice can't just let someone be killed unjustifiably. There needs to be accountability to the person that lost their life.
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

1st June 2012, 10:55 PM	#88
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,870	Originally Posted by Draca What do the police need evidence of? A crime. Originally Posted by Draca They have proof that someone was shot dead. That's close. Now they just have to get evidence on who did the shooting and if the act violated a law. Originally Posted by Draca Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that? Because - as the single, core feature of our justice system - a person suspected of a crime does not have to prove his innocence. The government has to prove his actions were unlawful. It's the same reason that you don't have to prove you didn't shoot Mr. Adkins.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

1st June 2012, 11:03 PM	#89
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Draca What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that? From a legal standpoint, no matter what crime is alleged, it's up to the prosecuter to: 1) Prove a crime has been committed. 2) Prove the accused committed the act. No individual can be compelled to apear in court and prove they didn't commit a criminal act - the Fifth Amendment - it's the job of the defense to disprove the prosecuter's case against their client.

1st June 2012, 11:10 PM	#90
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by Cylinder A crime. A man has been shot dead. That should be a crime unless proven otherwise. The shooter imo should have to prove it was a justifiable murder. Quote: That's close. Now they just have to get evidence on who did the shooting and if the act violated a law. The person who did the shooting in not in dispute. They fully admitted to doing the shooting. The State imo should be defending the rights of the murdered person. They had a right to their own life. If someone takes that right away they should have to prove they had reason. Cordell Jude is claiming SYG, MMD, reasons. He should have to prove those reasons. This is completey messed up that a man is dead and the shooter can claim be frightened by a dog leash as a reason to take someone's life. Quote: Because - as the single, core feature of our justice system - a person suspected of a crime does not have to prove his innocence. The government has to prove his actions were unlawful. It's the same reason that you don't have to prove you didn't shoot Mr. Adkins. I disagree. He DID murder someone. At this point he should have to prove he did so lawfully. He absolutely should have to prove his innocence after killing someone. The State imo should be taking the side of the person who had the right NOT to be killed. I agree that the government has to prove his actions were unlawful. The government should do that by prosecuting him in a court of law.
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org Last edited by Draca; 1st June 2012 at 11:45 PM.

1st June 2012, 11:17 PM	#91
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by BStrong From a legal standpoint, no matter what crime is alleged, it's up to the prosecuter to: 1) Prove a crime has been committed. 2) Prove the accused committed the act. No individual can be compelled to apear in court and prove they didn't commit a criminal act - the Fifth Amendment - it's the job of the defense to disprove the prosecuter's case against their client. 1) A man has been murdered. 2) They know who did it. They already know he murdered someone. That is a crime. The state should be prosecuting him under the law and he of course has the right to defend himself in court. Daniel Adkins has rights also. Cordell Jude took away all of them. The more I learn about these stand your ground laws the more I am becoming against them. It is unbelievable to me that there is even a question whether this man should be arrested or not based on the story given so far.
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org Last edited by Draca; 1st June 2012 at 11:41 PM.

1st June 2012, 11:19 PM	#92
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,870	So police should be arrested for kidnapping on every arrest and then be able to prove that the action didn't violate laws? Pharmacist and controlled substances? What about if I sold you a car, then report it as stolen?
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

1st June 2012, 11:30 PM	#93
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by Cylinder So police should be arrested for kidnapping on every arrest and then be able to prove that the action didn't violate laws? Pharmacist and controlled substances? What about if I sold you a car, then report it as stolen? Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase? Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability.
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

1st June 2012, 11:55 PM	#94
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,870	Originally Posted by Draca Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase? Yes. Originally Posted by Draca Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? No. There is a difference between kill and murder. One is neccessarily a crime. The other is not. Originally Posted by Draca Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. Yes. That's what they have to do, prove that a crime was committed. Originally Posted by Draca That quite frankly is ridiculous. No. It's a core freedom. Originally Posted by Draca How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. I'm confused. How can you claim it was murder without actual proof? I mean, do we convict on your sense of emotion alone or do we do some sort of opinion poll on the matter. Maybe we should construct some framework where the government claims a crime is committed and then we could set up a series of tests to see if the government's claims are valid and then proceed. That would be cool. Originally Posted by Draca These SYG laws are reversing accountability. No. The government has always been under the same burden.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

3rd June 2012, 10:16 AM	#95
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Draca 1) A man has been murdered. 2) They know who did it. They already know he murdered someone. That is a crime. The state should be prosecuting him under the law and he of course has the right to defend himself in court. Daniel Adkins has rights also. Cordell Jude took away all of them. The more I learn about these stand your ground laws the more I am becoming against them. It is unbelievable to me that there is even a question whether this man should be arrested or not based on the story given so far. Bolded: They know that an individual has been killed. Whether or not it will be determined to be murder has not yet been decided by the prosecuters office. Let me relate an anecdote. There was dashboard camera footage from a LEA that showed an officer pull up the vehicle behind a pedestrian walking away from the patrol vehicle - the officer immediately opened fire on the pedestrian, shooting him in the back. Horrible! officer kills innocent pedestrian w/o cause! Until you see the camera footage from the first patrol vehicle on the scene, that showed the pedestrian firing at the officer in that first vehicle, hitting the officer and then calmly turning his back and walking away. Until the whole story is laid out, take the "facts" with a grain of salt.

3rd June 2012, 10:31 AM	#96
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Draca Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase? Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability. Are you unaware of the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder? The taking of life can be determined by prosecuters and investigators to be any of those three general definitions. If an individual is known to be the actor in the incident, the law enforcement agency jurisdiction where the incident took place will collect evidence, present same to the prosecuter, who will then present that evidence to the grand jury, who will either indict, or not (no-bill) SYG doesn't change any of that. No individual can be legally compelled to testify against themselves, so your assertions to the contrary that "murder" is somehow different and SYG is the cause is incorrect.
	Last edited by BStrong; 3rd June 2012 at 10:36 AM.

5th June 2012, 07:17 AM	#97
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,432	Originally Posted by BStrong Are you unaware of the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder? The taking of life can be determined by prosecuters and investigators to be any of those three general definitions. If an individual is known to be the actor in the incident, the law enforcement agency jurisdiction where the incident took place will collect evidence, present same to the prosecuter, who will then present that evidence to the grand jury, who will either indict, or not (no-bill). Yep as a tard with a dog he had it coming.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

5th June 2012, 11:18 AM	#98
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,125	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Yep as a tard with a dog he had it coming. Wow what a messed up thing to say!
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus

5th June 2012, 08:50 PM	#99
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by Xulld Wow what a messed up thing to say! Well he was, he shouldn't have yelled at someone while holding a dog leash. I've learned so much about life here. It's permissable to attack and beat up people for following you, and to shoot them for yelling at you while holding a dog leash. Sort of glad that things don't work this way over here.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

7th June 2012, 03:46 PM	#100
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,125	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Well he was, he shouldn't have yelled at someone while holding a dog leash. I've learned so much about life here. It's permissable to attack and beat up people for following you, and to shoot them for yelling at you while holding a dog leash. Sort of glad that things don't work this way over here. Ohh, yea . . . sure . . . I learn lots of things from hyperbole, just not facts about life, more about those that use it and misrepresent others opinions.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus

7th June 2012, 06:21 PM	#101
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Draca What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that? The police should just round up the usual suspects like they used to in the gangster pictures.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th June 2012, 10:48 AM	#102
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	A Citizen's Petition to see Cordell Jude arrested for the death of Daniel Adkins: http://lawprisms.com/pub/cites/In_re_Daniel_Adkins.pdf Make sure to read the part where the Lying Liars Cordell Jude and his girlfriend Ronisha lie about seeing a 3 foot long wooden bat as wide as a water bottle. After detectives tell Jude no bat was found, he then says it might have been a dog leash or his hands. :/
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org Last edited by Draca; 27th June 2012 at 10:49 AM.

30th July 2012, 07:36 PM	#103
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Finally! After more than three months Cordell Lamar Jude, the shooter of Daniel Adkins, has been indicted for 2nd degree murder. http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19...-bell-shooting http://www.kpho.com/story/19131780/p...nix-drive-thru
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

30th July 2012, 07:48 PM	#104
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,098	Originally Posted by Draca Finally! After more than three months Cordell Lamar Jude, the shooter of Daniel Adkins, has been indicted for 2nd degree murder. http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19...-bell-shooting http://www.kpho.com/story/19131780/p...nix-drive-thru "Two weeks ago, Jude was arrested for marijuana possession and having a gun in his car. Police say two guys in his car had just committed a drive-by and Jude was giving them a ride. He told police he had just met the guys. Jude also told police he didn't know marijuana was illegal. Now that Jude is facing a second degree murder charge, the Adkins' family just hopes he shows up for court."

30th July 2012, 08:24 PM	#105
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by WildCat "Two weeks ago, Jude was arrested for marijuana possession and having a gun in his car. Police say two guys in his car had just committed a drive-by and Jude was giving them a ride. He told police he had just met the guys. Jude also told police he didn't know marijuana was illegal. Now that Jude is facing a second degree murder charge, the Adkins' family just hopes he shows up for court." Can you imagine the stink if Jude had been the shooter in a drive-by in the last 3 months and someone died. I do not understand at all why it took more than 3 months to arrest the man. Even now they leave it up to him to show up to court. He should have been arrested and bail set.
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	__________________ “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org