I was searching for what was Harpers Ferry, and found out that Brown was tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_%28law%29) for treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason) against the State of Virginia.
Can someone still be charged with treason against a particular US State today?
I hope katmai gets arrested for his treason of Alaska.
Treason against an idividual state still resides in common law for states that still possess it, when the Federal government is not involved.
Back then, there wasn't Federal law enforcement to do the job in the case, so the state of Virginia did it for political expediency. There was no way they were going to cede jurisdiction to the Federal government, and they weren't going to be denied their mockery of a trial of Captain Brown.
From David Reynolds' authoritative work, on the subject of treason in the Brown trial--
QuoteThe first charge made little sense. Brown had never been a Viriginia citizen, had lived only briefly in the neighboring state of Maryland, and had attacked a Federal property. How could he have committed treason against Virginia? The question would be brought up by his lawyers. Most legal historians agree that Brown should have been tried by the national government, not the state of Virginia.
(VA Governor) Wise wanted to be expeditious and to make a statement. It so happened taht the semiannual term of the district court under Judge Richard Parker had just begun. It was convenient to rush Brown and his men to trial in order to speeed the all-but-certain guilty verdict.
The issue of states' rights was also involved. Ever since the nullification crisis of 1832, when South Carolina had refused to pay a federal tax, Southerners had defended state sovereignty...By claiming John Brown for Virginia, Governor Wise was supporting his own state.
He also had a personal vendetta to satisfy. John Brown had embarrassed him. With only four men and some emancipated slaves, Brown had acheived a standoff against Southern forces that at their peak approached 800 men. A thin, tobacco-chewing slaveholder with aspirations to the presidency, Wise supported dueling and the bowie knife, a weapon with which, he later boasted, the South could easily conquer the North. This scrappy Virginian was not going to allow himself to be bested by an Abolitionist. He would make sure John Brown hanged and that Virginia hanged him.
In short, it was a sham trial.
viper, I would imagine it varies from one state to the next, since each state has its own unique state constitution.
The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best. The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted. Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case case against him for murder anyway.
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 08:37:26 AM
The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best. The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted. Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case case against him for murder anyway.
He was acting in the state of higher necessity. :contract:
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 08:37:26 AM
The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best. The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted. Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case case against him for murder anyway.
I dunno, his intention was to arm slaves
in Virginia to revolt. Seems like that is pretty treasonous to the State of Virginia to me.
The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.
I don't find the charge all that unreasonable. And I certainly don't see why anyone would even want to declare his trial a "sham". The fact that he was willing to die for his cause, even under the legitimate (if unjust) laws of the country he was trying to change is what makes him a martyr, isn't it?
Maybe because his trial wasnt fair? That the outcome was decided before he even set foot in the courtroom?? How about that?
I'm a bit unsure about American history. Did the Board of Education actually get him on treason? :unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2010, 12:16:15 PM
I'm a bit unsure about American history. Did the Board of Education actually get him on treason? :unsure:
Troll? :hmm:
My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 05:06:57 AM
viper, I would imagine it varies from one state to the next, since each state has its own unique state constitution.
thanks.
So, in theory, that would still be possible. Interesting. I suppose in most cases the Feds would claim jurisdiction.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2010, 12:00:09 PM
The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If a state is going to have a treason law (which is silly to begin with but there you go), then logically it would apply only to the citizens of that State. If the argument is that US citizenship entails citizenship or allegiance to every state independently (not true but assumed for the sake of argument), then state treason laws should be pre-empted and all acts of treason against a state could be tried under the federal treason laws.
Of course, John Brown could have been tried under the federal treason laws anyways since he attacked a federal fort and engaged in hostilities with US soldiers . . . but then the trial would be in federal court.
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 08, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams. :Embarrass:
:bleeding:
"Nobody was ever more justly hanged." --Hawthorne
John Brown was a religious nutter who committed murder.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2010, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 08, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams. :Embarrass:
:bleeding:
"Nobody was ever more justly hanged." --Hawthorne
John Brown was a religious nutter who committed murder.
:huh: So is W.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2010, 12:00:09 PM
The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If a state is going to have a treason law (which is silly to begin with but there you go), then logically it would apply only to the citizens of that State. If the argument is that US citizenship entails citizenship or allegiance to every state independently (not true but assumed for the sake of argument), then state treason laws should be pre-empted and all acts of treason against a state could be tried under the federal treason laws.
You are just re-iterating the reason why state specific treason laws are a bit silly.
I agree that they are silly, but I don't see it as any more silly to say that a US citizen does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to each state as well as allegiance to the US as a whole. In fact, if you remove the legal argument, and limit it to more of a philosophical stance, I would not even argue against the claim that "Each US citizen owes some measure of loyalty to each state that makes up the Union, regardless of whether or not they are actual inhabitants of each state".
Oddly enough, it is a stance that kind of argues AGAINST strict states rights really, since it is basically saying that your allegiance is bound up in the whole, so you particular residency is not important to a charge of treason against a particular state.
But really, the entire thing is a bit silly - but given the silly idea that you can commit treason against a state, as opposed to the federal government, I don't think that
1. The fact that he was not a resident/citizen of Virginia means he cannot commit treason against Virginia. Virginia is part of the Union, and therefore all citizens of the union owe it some measure of allegiance.
and
2. The fact that the target of the raid was federal property might suggest that the Feds should have primary jurisdiction, but the crime of treason was (presumably) based on his attempt to incite insurrection. The raid itself was simply a means to that end. Therefore, again, I don't think it is problematic that he be tried for treason in Virginia for the attempt to incite a slave rebellion.
Quote from: Jaron on April 08, 2010, 12:09:04 PM
Maybe because his trial wasnt fair? That the outcome was decided before he even set foot in the courtroom?? How about that?
The outcome being decided before he stepped into the courtroom doesn't mean that the trial was not fair. He was most certainly guilty, so the outcome being that he was in fact found guilty is hardly evidence of a sham trial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?
The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone. Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.
Now, one can argue that he wasn't innocent because unlawful killing was a predictable outcome of the actions he took, but given that the jury took all of 45 minutes to reach a verdict in such a complex case, I don't think "sham" is beyond the pale.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?
The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone. Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.
Now, one can argue that he wasn't innocent because unlawful killing was a predictable outcome of the actions he took, but given that the jury took all of 45 minutes to reach a verdict in such a complex case, I don't think "sham" is beyond the pale.
Is it really that complex?
He attacked a federal outpost, and people were killed. Whether he pulled the trigger or not I would not think is actually relevant. At least, I don't think it is.
I am not sure how long a jury has to deliberate before a trial becomes non-sham though. If it all happened in the exact same manner, but the jury took another hour, would that be enough?
Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?
The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone. Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.
You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty. If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty. If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
Felony, barring plea deals. The rule is that if a group is involved in the commission of a crime and just one member of the group commits a murder, each member of the group can be charged with that murder.
And Berkut, isn't your argument somewhat saying that you owe a measure of loyalty to the
union of the states? E.g., the federal government? All you've done is made the case that it should have fallen under interstate jurisdiction.
Legally, VA trying him is a kangaroo court. There was absolutely no way that they had in personam jurisdiction. It was a federal locale, and he wasn't a VA resident.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone. Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.
You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty. If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
[/quote]
Isn't felony murder for an accessory the way it is used today a somewhat new concept?
Accessory liability for criminal acts existed at common law and is of ancient pedigree.
Felony murder laws also have common law antecendents, and start showing up in US statute books in the 19th century.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2010, 02:18:18 PM
Is it really that complex?
I think so. You obviously do not.
QuoteHe attacked a federal outpost, and people were killed. Whether he pulled the trigger or not I would not think is actually relevant. At least, I don't think it is.
You are entitled to your opinion, for sure.
QuoteI am not sure how long a jury has to deliberate before a trial becomes non-sham though. If it all happened in the exact same manner, but the jury took another hour, would that be enough?
The requirement is that the verdict be based on evidence presented by the prosecution and defense. I cannot imagine a conscientious jury deciding whether Brown owed allegiance to a state in which he had never resided (I know you have decided this for yourself, but you don't have a jury's responsibility) in 45 minutes, let alone considered all the evidence for all three charges.
But that is just me. You appear to disagree with the statement that I "don't think "sham" is beyond the pale," and that is your right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty. If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
Why, yes. In fact, the part of my post you snipped out made that very point.
If you are involved in the commission of a potentially violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you are not
automatically guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge. Therefore, a defense is possible. You asked what defense was possible, and the answer is that, since he didn't actually engage in violence or kill anyone, the prosecution would have to show (and the defense attempt to counter) that murder was a reasonably possible outcome of the illegal actions Brown
did take, or whatever standard the law of the time required for accessory or actual murderer (sans actual killings).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2010, 04:00:36 PM
Felony, barring plea deals. The rule is that if a group is involved in the commission of a crime and just one member of the group commits a murder, each member of the group can be charged with that murder.
I had always thought there were important qualifications to that rule. Are you arguing, for instance, that if a group of hobos is trespassing on the property of the railroad, and one of them suddenly knifes another one of them, each member of that group can be charged with that murder?
that's not the law as I understand it, but I claim no expertise.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 04:37:48 PM
I had always thought there were important qualifications to that rule. Are you arguing, for instance, that if a group of hobos is trespassing on the property of the railroad, and one of them suddenly knifes another one of them, each member of that group can be charged with that murder?
that's not the law as I understand it, but I claim no expertise.
As of this moment, I'm no expert, either. I'm not sure if it applies to the murder of a member of the group itself. What I do know, though, is that most prosecutors would want not to charge the rest of the group in that case. Letter of the law aside, there's always some (limited) room for prosecutorial discretion.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2010, 02:31:48 PM
Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?
that was just dust in the wind.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 04:34:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty. If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
Why, yes. In fact, the part of my post you snipped out made that very point.
If you are involved in the commission of a potentially violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you are not automatically guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge. Therefore, a defense is possible. You asked what defense was possible, and the answer is that, since he didn't actually engage in violence or kill anyone, the prosecution would have to show (and the defense attempt to counter) that murder was a reasonably possible outcome of the illegal actions Brown did take, or whatever standard the law of the time required for accessory or actual murderer (sans actual killings).
Yes that is true, I should have said no good defense was possible.
I agree that the trial appears to have been a sham and that he had no real opportunity to raise a defense. But I don't think it mattered to the outcome.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 04:26:16 PM
I cannot imagine a conscientious jury deciding whether Brown owed allegiance to a state in which he had never resided (I know you have decided this for yourself, but you don't have a jury's responsibility) in 45 minutes.
It depends what instructions the judge gave. If the judge instructed the jury that Brown's residence was irrelevant to the treason charge, it wouldn't take up any time at all.
I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to commit treason against a state in theory. It's probably incredibly rare though, since all of the states have delegated their functions of foreign interest to the feds.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2010, 06:01:56 PM
I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to commit treason against a state in theory. It's probably incredibly rare though, since all of the states have delegated their functions of foreign interest to the feds.
In neither case of which I am aware has the issue of foreign involvement been an issue. For the states, treason is simply rebellion/insurrection, it seems.
If a man who is guilty of all sorts of crimes that would carry the death penalty is wrongly convicted and hanged, what does it matter? Public order is of more value than spending valuable time sorting out why we're hanging a man?
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2010, 12:51:13 PM
John Brown was a religious nutter who committed murder.
Go fuck yourself. There.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2010, 02:31:48 PM
Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?
He simply gave certain anti-Free Staters who were publicly known to have murdered, plotted to murder, and participate in the sacking of Lawrence a taste of their own medicine.
Heaven forbid Abolitionists should use violence against those who committed much more heinous atrocities. Abolitionists should simply walk around and pray, right? Fuck you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
If anything, he was fighting for America's soul...you know, the one that was included in the Declaration of Independence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
Fine, he was fighting a war and not wearing a uniform, so he got executed as a spy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2010, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
Fine, he was fighting a war and not wearing a uniform, so he got executed as a spy.
Stop hating black people.
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
Insurrection against a perceived morally bankrupt entity is a wee bit different from vigilantism. ;)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2010, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
Insurrection against a perceived morally bankrupt entity is a wee bit different from vigilantism. ;)
I was referring more to CdM's defense of his actions in Missouri than to what took place at Harper's Ferry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
John Brown :bleeding:
Cromwell :bleeding:
Brown x Cromwell...:x
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 04:54:51 AM
I hope katmai gets arrested for his treason of Alaska.
I understand the words as they are English, but can someone explain WTF he is trying to say.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2010, 12:51:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
John Brown :bleeding:
Cromwell :bleeding:
Brown x Cromwell...:x
100% agreement...200% if that was possible...
Quote from: PDH on April 08, 2010, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2010, 04:53:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2010, 02:31:48 PM
Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?
that was just dust in the wind.
carry on, my wayward son.
Morals and ideas change over the years. The wheel in the sky keeps on turning.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
If anything, he was fighting for America's soul...you know, the one that was included in the Declaration of Independence.
John Brown was the 1800s version of those fucks who got glassed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 06:38:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
If anything, he was fighting for America's soul...you know, the one that was included in the Declaration of Independence.
John Brown was the 1800s version of those fucks who got glassed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
More like the 19th century version of the student radicals who blew up college buildings in the 1960s.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2010, 02:47:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 06:38:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2010, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument;
I expect Berkut to have his opinion on the Brown matter, but you? And as a Jew, no less. Disappointing.
Actually, your position is the one I find interesting. In my experience, law enforcement professionals generally don't endorse vigilantism, at least not publicly.
John Brown wasn't engaging in vigilantism; he was fighting a war in the Cromwellian sense against an entrenched entity and those who espoused it, protected by law, custom and prejudice.
If anything, he was fighting for America's soul...you know, the one that was included in the Declaration of Independence.
John Brown was the 1800s version of those fucks who got glassed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
More like the 19th century version of the student radicals who blew up college buildings in the 1960s.
Really, really old?
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 06:38:31 AM
John Brown was the 1800s version of those fucks who got glassed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Wrong. John Brown was not fighting against the government for the sake of fighting the government over such trivialities as gun laws, low taxes or the United Nations. He was fighting against the institution of slavery, and the states that protected it.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2010, 02:47:55 PM
More like the 19th century version of the student radicals who blew up college buildings in the 1960s.
Wrong as well. John Brown was never a snot-nosed college punk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2010, 08:55:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 06:38:31 AM
John Brown was the 1800s version of those fucks who got glassed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Wrong. John Brown was not fighting against the government for the sake of fighting the government over such trivialities as gun laws, low taxes or the United Nations. He was fighting against the institution of slavery, and the states that protected it.
The institution of slavery is trivial.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 10:10:28 PM
The institution of slavery is trivial.
The abolishment of it is not.
grumbler, don't expect a foreigner to understand.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
grumbler, don't expect a foreigner to understand.
Indeed. The weird national neuroses of the United States make no sense to someone from the rational world.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:35:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
grumbler, don't expect a foreigner to understand.
Indeed. The weird national neuroses of the United States make no sense to someone from the rational world.
Hope an Indian steals your car stereo, you fake Englishman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:35:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
grumbler, don't expect a foreigner to understand.
Indeed. The weird national neuroses of the United States make no sense to someone from the rational world.
Hope an Indian steals your car stereo, you fake Englishman.
Indians are not a problem in the big cities.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:57:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2010, 06:35:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
grumbler, don't expect a foreigner to understand.
Indeed. The weird national neuroses of the United States make no sense to someone from the rational world.
Hope an Indian steals your car stereo, you fake Englishman.
Indians are not a problem in the big cities.
Well they sure as hell are a 'problem' in Edmonton. So either you're lying, or you don't consider Edmonton to be a big city. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2010, 08:01:55 PM
Well they sure as hell are a 'problem' in Edmonton. So either you're lying, or you don't consider Edmonton to be a big city. :hmm:
Not really. I hardly ever see them. Perhaps they keep to their shitty neighbourhoods.