Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 08:23:43 AM
Did you read the headline of this thread?

Yet it was you that claimed she threatened him, without evidence.

According to the NY Times article, the evidence had been investigated/reviewed by our justice system and it was determined that there was reason to believe she had assaulted her husband and threatened the kid. NY Times is simply reporting on what has happened.  If you want to argue that threatening shouldn't be illegal, for whatever reason, that's fine.  But under current law, after the situation was investigated and reviewed, the courts determined that there was reason to believe she had broken the law.  What is the issue?

An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled on Thursday after a probable cause hearing that criminal charges against Patricia Lio, an officer with the Milton Police Department, could proceed.

Officer Lio will face charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records.

Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 08:34:14 AM
Why are you such a gullible twit? Yet they knew it was a teen? So you don't think the narrative was already in motion?

They already had her image up, so they knew all the facts surrounding this shit, and here you are, like one of Pavlov's Dogs, barking in support of Marxist media.

You do know, you fool no one here, Right?

You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts?  It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.

Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:29:16 AM
You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts?  It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.

Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.

only morons or liberal brainwashed minions believe ANYTHING the NY SLIME prints.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:27:10 AM
According to the NY Times article, the evidence had been investigated/reviewed by our justice system and it was determined that there was reason to believe she had assaulted her husband and threatened the kid. NY Times is simply reporting on what has happened.  If you want to argue that threatening shouldn't be illegal, for whatever reason, that's fine.  But under current law, after the situation was investigated and reviewed, the courts determined that there was reason to believe she had broken the law.  What is the issue?

An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled on Thursday after a probable cause hearing that criminal charges against Patricia Lio, an officer with the Milton Police Department, could proceed.

Officer Lio will face charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records.

"An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court"

Oh, she's in trouble now... 

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:29:16 AM
You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts?  It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.

Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.

Did you even look at the image? This is just sad, how you work so feverishly to run block for Marxist media.

Here's what they already had.

https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1385022505367314435

Quote from: winterset on April 22, 2021, 09:53:50 AM
only morons or liberal brainwashed minions[/b[ believe ANYTHING the NY SLIME prints.

What's the difference?

Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 11:10:08 AM

"An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court"

Oh, she's in trouble now... 

Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her.  The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point.  What's the issue?

Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 11:11:24 AM
Did you even look at the image? This is just sad, how you work so feverishly to run block for Marxist media.

Here's what they already had.

https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1385022505367314435

Was a 16 year old killed by police? 

I haven't heard the 911 call, but the video wasn't edited until the point where the girl with the knife was shot.  Stopping at the point of someone being killed is perfectly normal.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 02:05:18 PM
There were reports, from multiple sources, that there was a threat. Police investigated and weren't able to rule out an assault or threat.  Until there is reason not to believe there was a threat, I'm going to be of the opinion there was a threat.

I hope you're never called to be a juror.  You seem to not understand the very foundation of US laws.  A person is by default, innocent, until proven guilty.  The onus is on the state to prove a threat was made.  In one place the youth is described as Hispanic and in another, he is black.  If they cannot even get this fact correct....

Quote from: RedGirlinBlueMd on April 22, 2021, 01:59:47 PM
I hope you're never called to be a juror.  You seem to not understand the very foundation of US laws.  A person is by default, innocent, until proven guilty.  The onus is on the state to prove a threat was made.  In one place the youth is described as Hispanic and in another, he is black.  If they cannot even get this fact correct....

Of course you're innocent until proven guilty and being found not guilty isn't the same as being innocent.  I'm not a juror and my opinion means nothing.  Based on what was reported I think she probably did some/all of what she's accused of...and the NY Times didn't report anything blatantly wrong.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her.  The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point.  What's the issue?

They did no such thing, she has yet to go before the court.
You sure are Hell bent on protecting Marxist media, even to the point, you're certain she's guilty of something.

As I've stated in the past, you can be busted for (SIP) Stupid In Public, but there's no law prohibiting that, so don't worry, you're safe.

Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 03:46:42 PM
They did no such thing, she has yet to go before the court.
You sure are Hell bent on protecting Marxist media, even to the point, you're certain she's guilty of something.

As I've stated in the past, you can be busted for (SIP) Stupid In Public, but there's no law prohibiting that, so don't worry, you're safe.

I didn't say she had gone to court. I was referring to this:

An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 04:50:14 PM
I didn't say she had gone to court. I was referring to this:

An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled

Ummm, yes you did!
You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her.  The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point.  What's the issue?

Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
Ummm, yes you did!
You really aren't very good at this, are you?

I was referring to what I said about. I did not believe they had gone to court and had a verdict. Obviously that would be a completely different discussion.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 05:07:22 PM
I was referring to what I said about. I did not believe they had gone to court and had a verdict. Obviously that would be a completely different discussion.

Give it up, moving the goal post will not save you.