Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "State Attorney for Palm Beach on why Brian Laundrie hasn't been charged" video.

  1. How many times must those who know what they're talking about answer this question before the know-it-all morons cease ignoring the answer?
    14
  2.  @Joy_W4760  He isn't giving out information on the case. He is explaining the LAW.
    13
  3. "We" have no idea what evidence there is and isn't. Stick to the few known facts, and drop all the bullshit second-guessing when the ANSWERS to your dumb-assed questions have been REPEATEDLY PROVIDED.
    13
  4. He isn't "stumping" anyone. But the United States is a "system of laws, and not of men". We don't do vigilante "justice" based on animus, rumor, speculations, and out-and-out bullshit. "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
    11
  5. Shouldn't he be, you know, found guilty first? Or do we lock people up in the US based exclusively on guesses, presumptions, and speculations?
    11
  6. "We" need to stop the assholes who are so "concerned" with rule of law to CEASE violating others' rights. The mob with the bullhorns are totally ignoring the FACT that they are disturbing the entire neighborhood. Does that respect the RIGHT of the neighbors to peace and quiet?
    8
  7. IF he committed the ALLEGED crime.
    7
  8. The media are the ringmaster.
    7
  9. As a fugitive under Federal law, he is subject to arrest everywhere within Federal jurisdiction, which includes all states and territories. And note that the indictment charged him with using the debit card in "WYOMING AND ELSEWHERE". That includes at least Wyoming, Florida, and any states between the two.
    7
  10. Or not. We haven't yet seen EVIDENCE that he killed Gabby, let alone that he's a 'serial killer". This isn't a game, or entertainment; it is a about the homicide against a human being.
    6
  11. No, it is not. This is about LAW, not law-illiterate head games.
    5
  12. That explanation has been provided repeatedly throughout the last several weeks.
    5
  13. Why? Have you evidence of such? Or are you simply wallowing in your hobby of beliving, or making up, conspirabunk?
    5
  14. Yeah, right, he's hiding in an abandoned house because he allegedly read a book of fiction. Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?
    5
  15.  @VesproDBA  Here's some actual law and EVIDENCE on the issue, anti-American bigot -- ___ "No Collusion"? Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia. This is Webster's definition of "collusion": "Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose". How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION? THIS IS THE LAW: The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE: We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony. In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property. And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia. That conspiracy is an additional felony. ____________ PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
    4
  16. Why? They seem to be doing okay with the one they have.
    3
  17. Sometimes it takes years. Sometimes decades. It's positive that law enforcement doesn't have your lack of patience for this to end so you can move on to the next murder-as-entertainment.
    3
  18. You don't know that. And you don't know that a "weapon" was used. And during the police stop he said he didn't have a phone, and it is reasonable to assume they both were using Gabby's.
    3
  19. First, there must be PROBABLE CAUSE that they would find EVIDENCE of a CRIME. Ever hear of the Constitution? The rule of law? That those you despise, for trumped up "reasons," ALSO have rights?
    3
  20. Who has committed what crimes? One person is charged with bank fraud, and he is currently a fugitive.
    2
  21. How does that work based on law, fact, and LOGIC? Suffice that "we" don't charge anyone with murder without EVIDENCE that they committed murder.
    2
  22. He doesn't have to; he is answering a question about LAW. How about you stop the stupid and accept the fact that experts know stuff you don't know, and accept what they offer for what it is, instead of ignoring it because RELEVANT?
    2
  23. A whole lot of speculation, without a single fact in evidence. Get a life worth living.
    2