Man Who Hit Handicapped Girl Found Not Guilty but Still Not Innocent
A year ago today, I wrote about a sawed-off little Truther weasel named German Talis who went to a speech to heckle Laura and Jenna Bush but who ended up getting arrested for assault on a handicapped teenaged girl.
Well, Talis was recently in court on his assault charges and a New York Jury found him not guilty, despite testimony from the girl, her parents, a Secret Service Agent, and several NYPD officers.
Several Talis fans have stopped by the original thread to celebrate Talis’ innocence in typical deranged leftist fashion. I’ll remind them, and you, what I wrote a year ago:
If you know or meet German Talis, call him out. Ask him why he chose to punch a little girl instead of the grown man that was right in front of him. Ask him if he’s capable of beating up anyone who isn’t actually crippled. Disparage his manhood. Ridicule him as loudly as reasonable, given where you are. And make sure his name gets attached to his sick little display for a very long time.
I still mean that to an extent. Being found not-guilty in a courtroom is not the same as being innocent. I don’t doubt (thanks to witness accounts and his own subsequent statements) that Talis hit and smacked a helpless girl in a wheelchair. That a jury decided that he didn’t violate a law doesn’t mean he didn’t actually do it. So my advice still stands but with a caveat. If you meet German Talis on the street, and he’s spouting his general slander about 9/11 “truth”, it seems fair to counter by asking him why he hit a handicapped girl. Don’t bug him while he’s eating a sandwich or doing whatever he does for a living (unless, of course, it’s promoting slander against our former President).
UPDATE: I’ve been contacted twice by allegedly-concerned readers who have defended Talis and have intimated rather strongly that I could be sued for libel. I doubt very seriously that Talis would have a case against me, but to be safe, I have moderated by opinion given the results of the court case. I do still believe that “not guilty” and “innocent” are far from synonymous and that it is well within my rights of free speech to note the difference (see also the O.J. Simpson case for a similar circumstance). Nevertheless, it’s hard to tell what a Truther might do, so, the moderation.
Other Posts of Interest:
- Letterman “Explains” His Rape Joke; Fails Miserably.
- I’ll Have a Filet O’Sea Kitten Combo, Please.
- Hate Speech from the Democrats Online Golden Boy
Category: Progressives
"…tee-hee, I'm so smart, I have more brain cells than anybody, I'm the only one who really knows what's going on, my opinion matters, I can tweak facts or revise history if I need to prove I'm right because I'm always right, I have a blog and some linguistic skills, I can bamboozle myself and others all at the same time, I'm special, woo hoo, everyone else is so stupid…"
You should get yourself a blog, what with that biting wit and everything.
Hey I was one of those who emailed you. Sorry I didn't notice this new post.
In the same way you have the right to say Talis is guilty based on your alleged "evidence" so does Talis have the right to "slander" the former president, no? Why would you promote the harassment of an individual exercising a right you are saying you have here?
I didn't say he was "guilty", which is a legal judgment. I said he hit the girl, which the evidence (and Talis himself, as I recall) says he did. That much is true. I am not harassing him in any way by noting it. You will notice that the only times I have mentioned Talis is when his actions put him in the public spotlight. It is hardly harassment to bring up his public foibles when he again puts himself in the public eye.
On the other hand, the notion that 9/11 was an inside job has been debunked thoroughly and in detail. Continuing to use the theory to make allegations of murder against the former President — and that is what Truthers have been doing for years — is the very definition of slander.
Hmmppff. That's what we say in the south when we find someone contemptuous. BTW, I'm hmmppffing at the jury, too, not just this Talis critter.
Jimmie, I've been checking in on your blog regularly ever since reading your excellent piece concerning that pimple on the fanny of humanity, Guy Cimbalo. I've never left a comment before, but I feel compelled to lend my support for your comments.
It's difficult to believe that anyone would want to defend this amazing asshole, a man that obviously enjoys physically assaulting teenage girls in wheelchairs (probably when he's not pushing blind people into oncoming traffic or ripping walkers out of the hands of the elderly). But they should realize just as they have the right to defend him and denigrate you, you have the right to compare him to a mentally-challenged hamster and think it's a shame he's taking oxygen away from sparrows. It's called free speech, people. It's like in the Constitution and everything, ya' know?
Being found innocent in a court of law usually means one of three things:
1) The defendant is truly innocent of the crime, meaning THEY DIDN'T DO IT. There were several witnesses to the fact that he did indeed hit this young woman in the wheelchair, so that's obviously not the issue in this case.
2) The defendant committed some or part of the action named in the indictment, but his actions did not meet the standard needed to be considered a violation of the law. Therefore, they're judged to be "not guilty" of a violation of the law, even though they still committed the action in question. That may be the case here.
3) The jury has been seated with idiots that do not understand the law and/or the evidence presented or they're slackers that don't really care what happened and they simply want to finish their jury duty gig as quickly as possible. If that's the case, real guilt or innocence doesn't matter. (Unfortunately, this happens more than we'd like to believe, particularly in smaller cases like this one.)
So folks, just because he was found innocent in court, it doesn't mean he didn't actually hit the girl. There are thousands of cases throughout history where guilty men have been ruled innocent, as well as the reverse.
I can't honestly see where this guy would have any standing for a suit, though there's no telling what could happen in a society as litigious as ours. His name was already a matter of public record due to media coverage. This blog didn't list his address, phone number, place of employment or position held, etc.–nothing that could've led to his person or position being harmed. All this blog did was report the facts as given by the news and then give the author's personal feelings about those facts. Liberals do this all the time–and they often leave out the facts–so what's the problem? If we're going to start locking up bloggers for telling us how they feel, we're gonna need to build a lot of new jails and install a take-a-number system for cell time.
The Truthers, Toothers, Toothless, whoever, need to back off. It never ceases to amaze me how the people that say they're only after the truth never seem to want to hear it–even after it hits them in the wheelchair, oh, I mean face.
Great post, Denali! Matt is one of a group of people trolling blogs that reported this story. They are demanding retractions and threatening libel. Go figure. They don't seem to understand that one can be acquitted of criminal charges while still having committed the act that brought about said charges. There were numerous witnesses including NYPD cops and a Secret Service agent who said the incident happened. Are they all liars?
Thanks, Jason! I don't normally go off to such a degree, but I despise people who want the right to say whatever they think, yet are unwilling to extend that right to others.
Truth is an absolute defense to slander and/or libel. The defendant hit this young woman– that is a fact (i.e. the truth). There are multiple witnesses to this incident, none of whom has been arrested for perjury. The MSM itself reported the defendant struck the victim. If these trolls were serious about legal action, they'd be bringing suit against any MSM outlets that reported this story, not penniless bloggers. (Old legal caveat: Don't sue poor people.)
I have threatened anyone. I was just letting you know that their group (I am not a member) is considering suits and I thought it might be a good idea to let you know they may come after you.
If juries are so bad, why are they in the Constitution. In my opinion, witnesses don't prove anything without evidence to back them up. Believe what you want but consider what you all are saying. You are all assuming someone is guilty because someone else said they are. There are a substantial amount of people who "witnessed" 9/11 being an inside job, it doesn't mean it is true. I don't have a solid opinion on 9/11 and Bush's involvement. It just upset me to see people calling for this guy's death, beating (on other sites), and harassment and he's not even guilty. Well, not guilty in court at least which is the standard set up in the Constitution.
Haven't threatened anyone with suit*
Matt, juries are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Why? Because they are made up of human beings and people are sometimes good (i.e. they take their job on a jury seriously) and sometimes bad (i.e. they don't). The founding fathers knew this about human nature and that's why there's an appeal process.
Secondly, witnesses to a crime ARE the evidence. That's why it's called 'testimony.' The definition of 'testimony' according to Merriam-Webster is as follows: "Firsthand authentication of a fact; EVIDENCE. . . A solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official."
I couldn't even begin to guess how many people are now in prison based on the testimony of other people and yes, sometimes innocent individuals are convicted of crimes which they didn't commit. (I'm always glad to see the innocent vindicated.) But it is difficult for me to believe that a Secret Service agent, as well as several NYPD officers, would conspire together to lie about what they witnessed during this incident and commit perjury on the stand just to see this man convicted of assault. If that were the case, why not go all the way and say he tried to kill her?
Do I believe this man should be killed or beaten? No, I do not. Do I believe he should be made to answer for his actions? Yes, I do. Sometimes that response will be called for in a court of law and sometimes it will be called for in the court of public opinion. This time it happened to be both. Obviously the public court was not as forgiving as the legal one.
Of course government employees would testify against an individual who was insulting their boss. I guess I'm just cynical since I don't give anyone trust unless they prove to be dependable and the majority of people in the government seem to be proven liars when investigated
.
PS: I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job, but I'm cynical enough to consider it a possibility and not believe the the 9/11 report filed by the government. Of course they wouldn't file a report incriminating themselves and their system.
Jimmie's posting was not about 9/11. I don't personally care what the defendant believes about 9/11. His opinion on catastrophes, conspiracies, and the Bush administration are not the primary issue. The primary issue is the story reported by the mainstream media–that he hit a young woman confined to a wheelchair.
I do, however, I agree with you on one thing. A lot of people in government certainly have proven themselves to be liars. A look at our current administration and congressional majority is a wonderful illustration.
Take care and have a lovely evening.
So, the same can be said about Michael Jackson . . . . . ?