JDHillFan Posted September 14 Posted September 14 3 hours ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said: 30 secs on "3 000 000 patriots on the streets?". Not likely since the actual number was around 110 000. Fox however might please you. This is a fun post. You play the Fox card all the while swallowing whole what The Guardian spoon feeds you. I have no idea what the number is but it’s a very safe bet that it’s more than 110K. That you are allegedly a legal arbiter of some sort is terrifying. All my best to your countrymen. Countrymen - I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the sort of language that triggers someone like you.
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 14 Posted September 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: 110 thousand? That's still a ***** load of people. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. 2 hours ago, aristocrat said: your hero was George Floyd and lemme tell ya that guy had a hell of a past As far as I know I have never mentioned his name. Or written anything related to him. So I don't know why you would say that. Edit: I did not intend to reply to you a million times Mr Bundy. Technical failure. Edited September 14 by AverageAllensSuspensor 1
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 14 Posted September 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: This is a fun post. You play the Fox card all the while swallowing whole what The Guardian spoon feeds you. I have no idea what the number is but it’s a very safe bet that it’s more than 110K. That you are allegedly a legal arbiter of some sort is terrifying. All my best to your countrymen. Countrymen - I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the sort of language that triggers someone like you. I don't read the guardian. I actually looked for what the official numbers from the police was since they claimed the official number from the police was 3 000 000. That might have been an official number from a police in captivity or one hit in the head from one of multiple flying objects. You can relax. Judges in Sweden are not political. I would never let political opinion affect my job. There are alot of laws I don't like or agree with. That does not matter. It is not my job to change the law. Edited September 14 by AverageAllensSuspensor
All_Pro_Bills Posted September 14 Posted September 14 The media exhibits a constant downward bias by under-estimating populist event crowd size to down play the truth, something the MSM seems to be at constant war with. The goal being to portray what they call "far right" as fringe while in reality its close to a majority view. 1
JDHillFan Posted September 14 Posted September 14 (edited) 11 minutes ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said: I don't read the guardian. I actually looked for what the official numbers from the police was since they claimed the official number from the police was 3 000 000. That might have been an official numbers from a police kept in captivity or something. You can relax. Judges in Sweden are not political. I would never let political opinion affect my job. There are alot of laws I don't like or agree with. That does not matter. It is not my job to change the law. You don’t read The Guardian but you submit an idiotic post assuming someone else is a Fox devotee. Not surprising. Judges in Sweden sound awesome. Based on the thoughts you share here I have no doubt that you are above the fray. Judges in America make politics part of their rulings all the time. Also - my preference is to be educated before I accept anyone’s claims at face value. I don’t always succeed. In any case, regarding the “Swedish judges are not political “ bit: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/01/28/the-rise-of-political-influence-on-sweden-s-justice-system_6013432_4.html 4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The media exhibits a constant downward bias by under-estimating populist event crowd size to down play the truth, something the MSM seems to be at constant war with. The goal being to portray what they call "far right" as fringe while in reality its close to a majority view. Agree with this but it’s also clear there is exaggeration going in the other direction too. Trump is well known for doing this. Edited September 14 by JDHillFan
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 14 Posted September 14 19 minutes ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said: For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. As far as I know I have never mentioned his name. Or written anything related to him. So I don't know why you would say that. Edit: I did not intend to reply to you a million times Mr Bundy. Technical failure. Are you sure about your exaggeration point? Lol j/k 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted September 14 Posted September 14 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Agree with this but it’s also clear there is exaggeration going in the other direction too. Trump is well known for doing this. IMO Trump is a life long BS artist and many of his policies are suspect but he's the only political figure that had the stones to face down the left and their irrational agenda. Edited September 14 by All_Pro_Bills 1 1
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 14 Posted September 14 (edited) 13 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Judges in Sweden sound awesome. Based on the thoughts you share here I have no doubt that you are above the fray. Judges in America make politics part of their rulings all the time. Well. Judges in the US are elected and/or appointed by politicians in charge? I do not even know. But such a system probably increases the risk of judges ruling according to certain political views. The political view of judges in Sweden is normally completely unknown. The systems are very different in many ways. Judges "overruling" political decisions is extremely rare. Such cases are almost unheard of. I do criminal law and civil law. So I would never try a political decision. I guess I in theory could find a certain law does not comply with our fundamental law/constitution. That is however extremely unlikely. Edited September 14 by AverageAllensSuspensor
aristocrat Posted September 14 Posted September 14 30 minutes ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said: For sure. But quite far from 3 million. I don't get the need to exaggerate like that. As far as I know I have never mentioned his name. Or written anything related to him. So I don't know why you would say that. Edit: I did not intend to reply to you a million times Mr Bundy. Technical failure. I know your type. Had the blm flag out front, defund the police across your fb etc. just cheering while those cities burned in the name of a guy who was a scumbag
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 14 Posted September 14 4 minutes ago, aristocrat said: I know your type. Had the blm flag out front, defund the police across your fb etc. just cheering while those cities burned in the name of a guy who was a scumbag Yeah. Right. I do not make any political posts on social media. In fact I don't post anything at all apart from an occasional food photo. Also I live in Sweden. Swedish police had very little to do with Floyd. 2
Wacka Posted September 23 Posted September 23 14 minutes ago, B-Man said: To the second post- IOW: "Get back in your Ghetto Jew!" 1
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 23 Posted September 23 On 9/14/2025 at 1:42 PM, JDHillFan said: Also - my preference is to be educated before I accept anyone’s claims at face value. I don’t always succeed. In any case, regarding the “Swedish judges are not political “ bit: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/01/28/the-rise-of-political-influence-on-sweden-s-justice-system_6013432_4.html I read his now. I am not a lay judge and was not talking about lay judges. Lay judges are somewhat comparable to a US jury. I would very much like to get rid of them. However they normally have very little influence on the outcome of a case (there are exceptions at district court level but those verdicts regularly gets overturned in the court of appeal where the lay judges are fewer than the legally trained judges) A bit difficult to explain. But also very different system compared to the US. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 28 Posted September 28 On 9/23/2025 at 3:33 PM, AverageAllensSuspensor said: I read his now. I am not a lay judge and was not talking about lay judges. Lay judges are somewhat comparable to a US jury. I would very much like to get rid of them. However they normally have very little influence on the outcome of a case (there are exceptions at district court level but those verdicts regularly gets overturned in the court of appeal where the lay judges are fewer than the legally trained judges) A bit difficult to explain. But also very different system compared to the US. I think I would prefer your system at this point since a jury is such a crap shoot and often comes down to stupid things. 1
AverageAllensSuspensor Posted September 28 Posted September 28 4 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I think I would prefer your system at this point since a jury is such a crap shoot and often comes down to stupid things. I understand the concept of jury's and lay judges. However hearing the "reasoning" from some lay judges when deciding on whether someone is guilty or not is frightening."He used to be in the army, no way would he do that." "She is ugly, why would anyone rape her." "People from 'insert random eastern European country' always steal." And that's what they sometimes say around the legally trained judge. I can't even imagine what they say when alone. Of course not all of them are like that. Those are extreme examples. But still worrying. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted Monday at 02:51 PM Posted Monday at 02:51 PM On 9/28/2025 at 12:54 AM, AverageAllensSuspensor said: I understand the concept of jury's and lay judges. However hearing the "reasoning" from some lay judges when deciding on whether someone is guilty or not is frightening."He used to be in the army, no way would he do that." "She is ugly, why would anyone rape her." "People from 'insert random eastern European country' always steal." And that's what they sometimes say around the legally trained judge. I can't even imagine what they say when alone. Of course not all of them are like that. Those are extreme examples. But still worrying. Agreed. A "reasoned decision" means one that doesn't rely on such biases, and that's what a trained judge will do well. It is why I liked doing appeals work - no juries in an appellate court. Juries can convict people based on things like "he wouldn't look me straight in the eye." That kind of "reasoning" is a slam-dunk appeal win if a judge relies on it. We have much to learn from the Swedens of the world. 1
Recommended Posts