United Nations set to debate human right violations of the US

[1christian1]

Are you sure? How do you know? I have not seen @1christian1 say that.


None of us knew any of this until somebody else informed us.
His record is public knowledge at this point.
I certainly knew before I answered.


What is your problem, really? Do you now also assume George Floyd was a born again Christian?

Do you mean to imply that Christians are not to suffer any worldly consequences for breaking the law?

And agree...

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Neither do you.

Well, I do know that being in a possession of a counterfeit bill unknowingly is not criminal act in the U.S., which you appear so stiff-necked that you can't even give a reason (U.S. Code) as the basis for your erroneous claim that it is much less the reason for your antagonist participation in this thread.

Hearing somebody say that Mr. Floyd was convicted of a crime doesn't mean you actually know, so you do you even know what the correct term for what you are doing? Do you know whether it was George Lee Floyd or George Perry Floyd that was indicted since there is no record of a jury convicting Mr. Floyd of "aggravated robbery" but you would know this if you would follow the instruction of Jesus as written of John 3:11.

But as far as what 1Christian1 meant by his statement "and killed a thief over 20 dollars. Not hypothetical, But real... ", you are simply making him complicit with your assumptions that many would consider racially biased, but he appears to be willing to do instead of answering the reason he believes the police killed a thief over $ 20.

 

[Magenta]

Well, I do know that being in a possession of a counterfeit bill unknowingly is not criminal act in the U.S., which you appear so stiff-necked that you can't even give a reason (U.S. Code) as the basis for your erroneous claim that it is much less the reason for your antagonist participation in this thread.

And there you are wrong, for I have repeatedly stated that no conviction will come from a charge of possession if it can be proven the possessor was without knowledge of the currency being counterfeit, despite your continuously antagonistic attitude toward me, and the false accusations and erroneous assumptions you have made of me and others.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I have repeatedly stated that no conviction will come from a charge of possession if it can be proven the possessor was without knowledge of the currency being counterfeit,

I asked you before, how are you going to prove that you didn't know a bill in your possession is counterfeit and like other questions I have asked you, you simply ignore them.

Here in the United States we have a principle of jurisprudence that all men are innocent until proven guilty. So your guilty until proven innocent argument doesn't even apply in this matter which is the point I am trying to make to you.

 

[Magenta]

I asked you before, how are you going to prove that you didn't know a bill in your possession is counterfeit and like other questions I have asked you, you simply ignore them.

Here in the United States we have a principle of jurisprudence that all men are innocent until proven guilty. So your guilty until proven innocent argument doesn't even apply in this matter which is the point I am trying to make to you.

Do you NOT understand that innocence or guilt is determined AFTER a person is charged and goes to court??? I have made reference to this several times and yet here you are once again falsely accusing me and denying the fact that I have answered multiple times.

Uttering or possessing.

Whoever, with intent to defraud, utters or possesses with intent to utter any counterfeit United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States, having reason to know that the money order, currency, note, or obligation or security is forged, counterfeited, falsely made, altered, or printed, is guilty of offering counterfeited currency and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.

We may never know if George Floyd knowingly possessed and knowingly tried to pass counterfeit currency with intent to defraud.

 

[1christian1]

Well, I do know that being in a possession of a counterfeit bill unknowingly is not criminal act in the U.S., which you appear so stiff-necked that you can't even give a reason (U.S. Code) as the basis for your erroneous claim that it is much less the reason for your antagonist participation in this thread.

Hearing somebody say that Mr. Floyd was convicted of a crime doesn't mean you actually know, so you do you even know what the correct term for what you are doing? Do you know whether it was George Lee Floyd or George Perry Floyd that was indicted since there is no record of a jury convicting Mr. Floyd of "aggravated robbery" but you would know this if you would follow the instruction of Jesus as written of John 3:11.

But as far as what 1Christian1 meant by his statement "and killed a thief over 20 dollars. Not hypothetical, But real... ", you are simply making him complicit with your assumptions that many would consider racially biased, but he appears to be willing to do instead of answering the reason he believes the police killed a thief over $ 20.

Did you even read what my point was about. What I said was that I had my vehicle stolen at gun point
and the police did'nt respond for more than 2 hour's. But they responded and killed a person over a 20 dollar bill. Why did you turn this into an entirely different issue...

 

[Magenta]

Did you even read what my point was about. What I said was that I had my vehicle stolen at gun point
and the police did'nt respond for more than 2 hour's. But they responded and killed a person over a 20 dollar bill. Why did you turn this into an entirely different issue...

Oh my goodness, I had no idea you were held at gun point No wonder it rocked your world

I am glad nothing worse happened, such as being shot

 

[EleventhHour]

I asked you before, how are you going to prove that you didn't know a bill in your possession is counterfeit and like other questions I have asked you, you simply ignore them.

Here in the United States we have a principle of jurisprudence that all men are innocent until proven guilty. So your guilty until proven innocent argument doesn't even apply in this matter which is the point I am trying to make to you.

While yes possession is an indictable offense ... in order for charges to be laid there needs to be some evidence of criminal intent,

circumstances and prior history all need to be considered.

 

[EleventhHour]

Did you even read what my point was about. What I said was that I had my vehicle stolen at gun point
and the police did'nt respond for more than 2 hour's. But they responded and killed a person over a 20 dollar bill. Why did you turn this into an entirely different issue...

A few years back this happened to a woman in front of me, the bill was put through the scanner and it came up counterfeit.

The store seized the money, put it in special envelope .. police came and nothing of came of it ... no charges ....there was obviously no criminal intent.

People are not just charged on the spot... police have discretionary powers to make those decisions based on priors, the person, the situation, the type of counterfeit.

I have waited for police longer than two hours sadly.

 

[1christian1]

A few years back this happened to a woman in front of me, the bill was put through the scanner and it came up counterfeit.

The store seized the money, put it in special envelope .. police came and nothing of came of it ... no charges ....there was obviously no criminal intent.

People are not just charged on the spot... police have discretionary powers to make those decisions based on priors, the person, the situation, the type of counterfeit.

I have waited for police longer than two hours sadly.

Exactly ! Thank you Eleven. And would'nt a counterfeit incident require the FBI? And you are absolutely
right about what happens when a clerk find's a counterfeit bill. They apologize . and take it... Never heard or read of anything different..

 

[Magenta]

A few years back this happened to a woman in front of me, the bill was put through the scanner and it came up counterfeit.

The store seized the money, put it in special envelope .. police came and nothing of came of it ... no charges ....there was obviously no criminal intent.

People are not just charged on the spot... police have discretionary powers to make those decisions based on priors, the person, the situation, the type of counterfeit.

I have waited for police longer than two hours sadly.

How can you say there was no criminal intent? It is unknown, actually, if not investigated.

 

[EleventhHour]

How can you say there was no criminal intent? It is unknown, actually, if not investigated.

That is what I stated...it needs to be investigated.

Police ask questions on the scene they do not always lay charges on the scene.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

While yes possession is an indictable offense ... in order for charges to be laid there needs to be some evidence of criminal intent,

circumstances and prior history all need to be considered.

Your response must be a result of the guilty until proven innocent mentality, so which one is it, there has to be evidence of criminal intent in order to charge a person or does the possession of a counterfeit bill constitute proof of criminal intent?

Like I asked the other Canadian, how would you prove that a bill you possessed wasn't counterfeit?

It would be easy to prove your criminal intent since you are guilty until proven innocent so how would you prove that you were innocent of criminal intent if you know. [cricket curping]

So if you know that Mr. Floyd actually passed a counterfeit bill then where is that counterfeit bill right now, if you can't prove the whereabouts of its location now then how do you know there even was one?

 

[Magenta]

That is what I stated...it needs to be investigated.

Police ask questions on the scene they do not always lay charges on the scene.

I did not see where you said that, just that no charges were laid. How can intent be proven or dismissed if no formal investigation is done? Police choosing not to lay charges - does that count as an investigation? Or is it simply that they chose not to lay charges? In both these scenarios the police were called and got involved. The policeman who murdered George Floyd had history with him. I suppose we will find out more about that when his case goes to trial.

 

[EleventhHour]

I did not see where you said that, just that no charges were laid. How can intent be proven or dismissed if no formal investigation is done? Police choosing not to lay charges - does that count as an investigation? Or is it simply that they chose not to lay charges? In both these scenarios the police were called and got involved. The policeman who murdered George Floyd had history with him. I suppose we will find out more about that when his case goes to trial.

I was actually not speaking directly to this case.... just in general.

Agree to many unknowns.

 

[EleventhHour]

Your response must be a result of the guilty until proven innocent mentality, so which one is it, there has to be evidence of criminal intent in order to charge a person or does the possession of a counterfeit bill constitute proof of criminal intent?

Like I asked the other Canadian, how would you prove that a bill you possessed wasn't counterfeit?

It would be easy to prove your criminal intent since you are guilty until proven innocent so how would you prove that you were innocent of criminal intent if you know. [cricket curping]

So if you know that Mr. Floyd actually passed a counterfeit bill then where is that counterfeit bill right now, if you can't prove the whereabouts of its location now then how do you know there even was one?

How can you come to the conclusion of "guilty until proven innocent" that is not what I stated at all.

I am going to back and read... I am a little confused now.

 

[EleventhHour]

Your response must be a result of the guilty until proven innocent mentality, so which one is it, there has to be evidence of criminal intent in order to charge a person or does the possession of a counterfeit bill constitute proof of criminal intent?

Like I asked the other Canadian, how would you prove that a bill you possessed wasn't counterfeit?

It would be easy to prove your criminal intent since you are guilty until proven innocent so how would you prove that you were innocent of criminal intent if you know. [cricket curping]

So if you know that Mr. Floyd actually passed a counterfeit bill then where is that counterfeit bill right now, if you can't prove the whereabouts of its location now then how do you know there even was one?

I am sorry... this does not make sense to me...being charged in no way means a person is guilty.

The verdict of guilt or innocence comes after charges are laid and if it goes to court or by plea bargain.

Speculating is really a waste of time, so I have no answer on the rest of your post.

 

[EleventhHour]

I asked you before, how are you going to prove that you didn't know a bill in your possession is counterfeit and like other questions I have asked you, you simply ignore them.

Here in the United States we have a principle of jurisprudence that all men are innocent until proven guilty. So your guilty until proven innocent argument doesn't even apply in this matter which is the point I am trying to make to you.

Here is your error.

One does not need to necessarily prove they did not know, what needs to be proven is one did know.

No one has to prove their innocence (although they do) the burden of proof is on the prosecution... they must have sufficient evidence to prove intent and knowledge.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

How can you come to the conclusion of "guilty until proven innocent" that is not what I stated at all.

I am going to back and read... I am a little confused now.

If merely being in possession of a counterfeit bill is a criminal offense, or as you say indictable offense then the person would have already committed an offense by possessing the bill. In the US the criminal offense is the possession with the intent to defraud by passing the counterfeit bill as real.

I am sorry... this does not make sense to me...being charged in no way means a person is guilty.

The verdict of guilt or innocence comes after charges are laid and if it goes to court or by plea bargain.

Speculating is really a waste of time, so I have no answer on the rest of your post.

You cannot be charged with a criminal offense unless a criminal offense has been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause that to suspect that you committed the crime.

While the counterfeit bill itself is probable cause that a crime has been committed, unless the police officer has probable cause to believe that the person found in possession of the counterfeit bill knew it was counterfeit and intended to pass the counterfeit bill as real, then the police officer has not legal authorization to seize the person (arrest) without a warrant. (See MN CRIM PRO § 629.34. When Arrest may be made without Warrant)

Answer a direct question is not speculation, but it more like pulling a tooth when asking some people.

 

[EleventhHour]

If merely being in possession of a counterfeit bill is a criminal offense, or as you say indictable offense then the person would have already committed an offense by possessing the bill. In the US the criminal offense is the possession with the intent to defraud by passing the counterfeit bill as real.



You cannot be charged with a criminal offense unless a criminal offense has been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause that to suspect that you committed the crime.

While the counterfeit bill itself is probable cause that a crime has been committed, unless the police officer has probable cause to believe that the person found in possession of the counterfeit bill knew it was counterfeit and intended to pass the counterfeit bill as real, then the police officer has not legal authorization to seize the person (arrest) without a warrant. (See MN CRIM PRO § 629.34. When Arrest may be made without Warrant)

Answer a direct question is not speculation, but it more like pulling a tooth when asking some people.

Yes that is all correct around probable cause.

I do not see what is the debate here?