Jump to content

Brown Hawk

Members
  • Content Count

    751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,275 Excellent

About Brown Hawk

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

287 profile views
  1. Brown Hawk

    Random Posting

    So you need another gun too! And you have medical proof! Hawk
  2. Actually, I ordered several thousand. 😁. Hawk
  3. Brown Hawk

    Random Posting

    I need to buy another gun. But then, I ALWAYS need to buy another gun! Hawk
  4. It ran out the door before they could cook it for you 😂🤣😂🤣. Hawk
  5. Brown Hawk

    NYC loses Amazon HQ2

    I think he might have been looking in the mirror when he made the statement. Hawk
  6. So what idiot took Schumer to a MacDonalds? Hawk
  7. Brown Hawk

    Social Justice What Does It Mean to You?

    That’s because there is no “None of the above” available. 🤔😁😂🤣. Hawk
  8. Brown Hawk

    Social Justice What Does It Mean to You?

    To me, Social Justice is a way of attacking the First Amendment freedoms of Speech, Press, and Religion. If you look, and not very hard, they are ALL under severe attack. And with those restricted, they find it even easier to attack the Second, and all the rest of our freedoms. Just look at Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and the major media. I now retire to cool off and not continue this rant. I need to zero a couple of rifles. 😠😠 Hawk
  9. Brown Hawk

    Weed and memory...

    Only if you have the stuff delivered by semi. Daily. And probably not then. Hawk
  10. Brown Hawk

    Imponderables

    My experience is that those drawers are usually the only thing that survive moves intact. Hawk
  11. Brown Hawk

    Random Political/Social Posting

    FIFY Hawk
  12. Brown Hawk

    They were the agressors?

    Steve, the preponderance of the evidence about underage sex trafficking shows that the underage who participate later were abused at a much younger age and trained that way. So there is much more than a “shred of evidence” in favor of that being the background of these two. That is statistical evidence. On an individual level, you have a point not to be ignored, but also not to be taken without evidence. Hawk
  13. Brown Hawk

    They were the agressors?

    I already conceded your point. I refer to three criminals. You are totally ignoring both of mine. First, you say that you have facts not presented here, and say that others are only presenting opinion, so I asked that you present where you got those facts, to show that you are not posting opinion. Second, the point that the judge reduced the sentence of the pervert for no lawful reason, just his opinion. In some states, that could get the whole trial thrown out on that statement alone. If you have facts to the contrary, please share them. Additionally, that “experience” is stating widely proven facts about the sex trade in young children. Not saying it’s 100% true, but it is predominantly true. Hawk
  14. Brown Hawk

    They were the agressors?

    I understand your point perfectly. You are totally missing the point that the ringleader of the crime got a reduced sentence because he had accomplices, not for any other reason, such that he ratted them out to get a reduced sentence. You also keep stating that you have “facts pertaining to the case”, that aren’t posted here. If you have those facts, please post them here. We would all like to update ourselves. And how any of the criminals got to the crime scene is irrevelant to the fact that a crime was committed. The problem we see is that the judge reduced the sentence of the ringleader by saying the accomplices were complicit, which is the definition of an accomplice. You’re complaining that the accomplices aren’t being prosecuted or punished, and ignoring the fact that the article was about the outrage at the criminal act of the judge in reducing the criminal penalty of the ringleader because of his OPINION that the accomplices helped in the crime. Hawk
  15. Brown Hawk

    They were the agressors?

    Actually, that is the logical extension of what you said. One criminal recruits other criminals, so the original criminal gets a lessor penalty because two other criminals came in to collaborate in the crime. By law, a murder committed during a robbery makes even the getaway driver a murderer. It doesn’t get the ringleader extra time off. So if you forget the age of the two girls and just look at it as three criminals and see where your logic takes you. Their age will give them special treatment, because the law reads that way, but that is not what the article was about. And why so many here are upset by your position. Basically, the judge was guilty of malfeasance. Hawk
×