• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dragon Con is a den of hedonism?

Started by The Troll King,

94 posts in this topic

slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
Kramer had managed to avoid trial for more than ten years by claiming he was incapacitated and couldn’t handle the rigors of sitting in a courtroom.

 

What exactly are "the rigors of sitting in a courtroom?" And if he was "incapacitated," why can't they just wheel him in? Or, looks like he could wheel himself in, as he seems capable of handling the "rigors" of going to a convention...

 

3865560488_376c47dbae.jpg

 

Unless one is on their deathbed, there is no physical reason they can't stand trial. This cat hasn't been laid up in the hospital for 13 years.

 

:facepalm:

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

From what I understand though there are 4 separate victims and up to this point what has been prolonging the case are well-paid attorneys being funded by Dragon Con money.

 

Considering he was arrested in 2011 when found in a motel room with a 14 year old boy in Connecticut (despite the 13 year old allegations he has already been dodging trial on) somehow I don't see how opining on this subject would be reckless when it is obviously so blatant.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like it, yes.

 

I also know everything I know about this case from the media. A healthy dose of using facts to make up ones mind is needed. I feel short on details right now. That's all.

 

It seems that the problem with disassociating themselves (Dragon Con) from him (Kramer) lies with an issue in Georgia law that prevents a corporation from dissolving while there is litigation against it.

 

Kramer has seen fit to insure that there is constant litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
A healthy dose of using facts to make up ones mind is needed. I feel short on details right now. That's all.

 

OJ was found not guilty in a court of law - fact.

 

Still think he's innocent?

 

 

sigh

 

I said there are facts we haven't heard and haven't been presented yet - fact.

 

You can make up your mind based any way you want, it doesn't make you a psychic, it doesn't give you the information the prosecutors have, and it doesn't make your assumptions any more accurate than the judgments made after the facts are presented.

 

The fact that you would trot out OJ as a reason to disregard actual trial evidence is a little troubling. Actually, a lot troubling. Are you advocating doing away with the trial system of innocent until proven guilty and replacing it with "he seems pretty guilty" system?

 

Those protections are there for a reason. You've probably never seen what happens to an innocent caught in the gears of the justice system. "Seem Guilty" can destroy an innocent life, an entire family's life, so it's important (even with the ones who seem the most monstrous) to keep the system and the protections in place. It's what society is based upon.

 

There's no need to be reckless when the facts will be presented in a much more complete and detailed way than anything that can be found on a website, news channel, or as has been released to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

From what I understand though there are 4 separate victims and up to this point what has been prolonging the case are well-paid attorneys being funded by Dragon Con money.

 

Considering he was arrested in 2011 when found in a motel room with a 14 year old boy in Connecticut (despite the 13 year old allegations he has already been dodging trial on) somehow I don't see how opining on this subject would be reckless when it is obviously so blatant.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like it, yes.

 

I also know everything I know about this case from the media. A healthy dose of using facts to make up ones mind is needed. I feel short on details right now. That's all.

 

It seems that the problem with disassociating themselves (Dragon Con) from him (Kramer) lies with an issue in Georgia law that prevents a corporation from dissolving while there is litigation against it.

 

Kramer has seen fit to insure that there is constant litigation.

 

Entirely possible. The others who run Dragon Con would have better luck resigning from the corporation, starting a new one, leaving the original intact, and disassociating themselves that way.

 

The old corp would be stuck without any staff to run it, and the assets would be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

From what I understand though there are 4 separate victims and up to this point what has been prolonging the case are well-paid attorneys being funded by Dragon Con money.

 

Considering he was arrested in 2011 when found in a motel room with a 14 year old boy in Connecticut (despite the 13 year old allegations he has already been dodging trial on) somehow I don't see how opining on this subject would be reckless when it is obviously so blatant.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like it, yes.

 

I also know everything I know about this case from the media. A healthy dose of using facts to make up ones mind is needed. I feel short on details right now. That's all.

 

It seems that the problem with disassociating themselves (Dragon Con) from him (Kramer) lies with an issue in Georgia law that prevents a corporation from dissolving while there is litigation against it.

 

Kramer has seen fit to insure that there is constant litigation.

 

Entirely possible. The others who run Dragon Con would have better luck resigning from the corporation, starting a new one, leaving the original intact, and disassociating themselves that way.

 

The old corp would be stuck without any staff to run it, and the assets would be gone.

 

Indeed that seems to be the logical solution yet I'm guessing there is something else preventing them from doing this or else it would have already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggr1103

aggr1103

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

Fair enough point. My implication about being a parent is that it sounded like you were looking for a way to defend him in your original post, which is something I've seen done by people who are naive and have no children.

 

So with that said - why not let the whole story out? Sit through a trial and let the facts exonerate him of his charges if he is innocent like he evidently claims to be. Again, I find it hard to call my assumption of his guilt "reckless" considering he is avoiding telling his side of the story in a court of law.

 

OJ in the white bronco looked pretty guilty to me, even though a jury of his peers did not find him so. Jerry Sandusky sounded creepy and guilty being interviewed by Bob Costas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

Fair enough point. My implication about being a parent is that it sounded like you were looking for a way to defend him in your original post, which is something I've seen done by people who are naive and have no children.

 

So with that said - why not let the whole story out? Sit through a trial and let the facts exonerate him of his charges if he is innocent like he evidently claims to be. Again, I find it hard to call my assumption of his guilt "reckless" considering he is avoiding telling his side of the story in a court of law.

 

OJ in the white bronco looked pretty guilty to me, even though a jury of his peers did not find him so. Jerry Sandusky sounded creepy and guilty being interviewed by Bob Costas.

 

 

Actually I want him tried, and if he's convicted I want him to get the death penalty. I want the death penalty for anyone that would harm a child. They don't deserve to live after they've effectively destroyed the life of a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

Fair enough point. My implication about being a parent is that it sounded like you were looking for a way to defend him in your original post, which is something I've seen done by people who are naive and have no children.

 

So with that said - why not let the whole story out? Sit through a trial and let the facts exonerate him of his charges if he is innocent like he evidently claims to be. Again, I find it hard to call my assumption of his guilt "reckless" considering he is avoiding telling his side of the story in a court of law.

 

OJ in the white bronco looked pretty guilty to me, even though a jury of his peers did not find him so. Jerry Sandusky sounded creepy and guilty being interviewed by Bob Costas.

 

 

Actually I want him tried, and if he's convicted I want him to get the death penalty. I want the death penalty for anyone that would harm a child. They don't deserve to live after they've effectively destroyed the life of a child.

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

From what I understand though there are 4 separate victims and up to this point what has been prolonging the case are well-paid attorneys being funded by Dragon Con money.

 

Considering he was arrested in 2011 when found in a motel room with a 14 year old boy in Connecticut (despite the 13 year old allegations he has already been dodging trial on) somehow I don't see how opining on this subject would be reckless when it is obviously so blatant.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like it, yes.

 

I also know everything I know about this case from the media. A healthy dose of using facts to make up ones mind is needed. I feel short on details right now. That's all.

 

It seems that the problem with disassociating themselves (Dragon Con) from him (Kramer) lies with an issue in Georgia law that prevents a corporation from dissolving while there is litigation against it.

 

Kramer has seen fit to insure that there is constant litigation.

 

Entirely possible. The others who run Dragon Con would have better luck resigning from the corporation, starting a new one, leaving the original intact, and disassociating themselves that way.

 

The old corp would be stuck without any staff to run it, and the assets would be gone.

 

Indeed that seems to be the logical solution yet I'm guessing there is something else preventing them from doing this or else it would have already happened.

 

 

Probably true, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the GA law, but if they put in a block from dissolving the corp to stop people from dodging litigation they probably have blocks from people starting a new corp. to do the same thing the old corp. did. Usually that's meant to block evading prosecution/liability. In this case it might actually be abetting it given the income the corp. is forced to provide the defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggr1103

aggr1103

Posted
Posted

The fact that you would trot out OJ as a reason to disregard actual trial evidence is a little troubling. Actually, a lot troubling. Are you advocating doing away with the trial system of innocent until proven guilty and replacing it with "he seems pretty guilty" system?

 

Those protections are there for a reason. You've probably never seen what happens to an innocent caught in the gears of the justice system. "Seem Guilty" can destroy an innocent life, an entire family's life, so it's important (even with the ones who seem the most monstrous) to keep the system and the protections in place. It's what society is based upon.

 

I'm not advocating doing away with the trial system. If anything, I'm advocating he STAND TRIAL to prove his innocence. The longer something like this is dragged out, the more "reckless" as you put it the opinions will be.

 

And as far as the "seem guilty" point you're making - I was taught to not put myself in situations where my character or innocence would be called into question. There has to be evidence in place to be charged with a crime. I have a friend who's going through a trial right now because he put himself in a position where his character as a police officer has been called into question. Is he guilty: all signs point to yes, though he still claims innocence. Has it torn his life asunder: bet your pocketbook it has. Could it have been avoided had he chose not to put himself in a bad situation: dang skippy it could have been avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggr1103

aggr1103

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

Fair enough point. My implication about being a parent is that it sounded like you were looking for a way to defend him in your original post, which is something I've seen done by people who are naive and have no children.

 

So with that said - why not let the whole story out? Sit through a trial and let the facts exonerate him of his charges if he is innocent like he evidently claims to be. Again, I find it hard to call my assumption of his guilt "reckless" considering he is avoiding telling his side of the story in a court of law.

 

OJ in the white bronco looked pretty guilty to me, even though a jury of his peers did not find him so. Jerry Sandusky sounded creepy and guilty being interviewed by Bob Costas.

 

 

Actually I want him tried, and if he's convicted I want him to get the death penalty. I want the death penalty for anyone that would harm a child. They don't deserve to live after they've effectively destroyed the life of a child.

 

:applause:

 

You have a friend for life now sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

What about a mom?

 

Do you have one of those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

The fact that you would trot out OJ as a reason to disregard actual trial evidence is a little troubling. Actually, a lot troubling. Are you advocating doing away with the trial system of innocent until proven guilty and replacing it with "he seems pretty guilty" system?

 

Those protections are there for a reason. You've probably never seen what happens to an innocent caught in the gears of the justice system. "Seem Guilty" can destroy an innocent life, an entire family's life, so it's important (even with the ones who seem the most monstrous) to keep the system and the protections in place. It's what society is based upon.

 

I'm not advocating doing away with the trial system. If anything, I'm advocating he STAND TRIAL to prove his innocence. The longer something like this is dragged out, the more "reckless" as you put it the opinions will be.

 

And as far as the "seem guilty" point you're making - I was taught to not put myself in situations where my character or innocence would be called into question. There has to be evidence in place to be charged with a crime. I have a friend who's going through a trial right now because he put himself in a position where his character as a police officer has been called into question. Is he guilty: all signs point to yes, though he still claims innocence. Has it torn his life asunder: bet your pocketbook it has. Could it have been avoided had he chose not to put himself in a bad situation: dang skippy it could have been avoided.

 

 

The delay is unacceptable. I agree.

 

However in terms of "taught not to put myself in situations here my character or innocence would be called into question." That's an admirable goal. Real life doesn't always work that way.

 

I once defended someone in a criminal case. He had had too much to drink one night and decided he should not drive. His friend decided to drive. Unknown to my client, the passenger in the car and owner of the car, the friend also had enough to drink to impair his driving.

 

They got into a single car accident (tree) and two people in the back seat were killed. The passenger, my client, was prosecuted for felony "impersonating a police officer" because he had plates from the police department in another state that he had just retired from and his new plates had not arrived.

 

He tried to not put himself in a bad situation but there he found himself. With felony charges over his head. Innocent man. Trying to do the right thing. The justice system ignored his intentions and it took 18 months to clear him.

 

I found out later that the municipality had a law that allowed them to seize, sell, and keep the funds from any vehicle used in the commission of a felony by the owner of the vehicle. Since the driver, who killed two people, wasn't the owner of the car there was no way to get the car seized by just charging him. It had to be a felony against the owner of the car. You can finish the story from there.

 

The wheels of justice aren't always on the rails as we'd like them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

 

Until he gets prosecuted and the details of the case him are laid out, it's premature to make a judgment.

 

The allegations are horrible, and next to none of the actual details of the proof against him have been shown before the court. Opining now would be a guess, and a reckless one.

 

He's been dodging prosecution for over a decade now though, so all we have to go on are his actions. How is it reckless to assume he's a child molester after he was caught with a 14 year old child after the court told him NOT to be with anyone under the age of 16? If I was innocent of a charge that damning, I would be doing everything in my power to avoid any speculation on my character. Not digging my hole deeper.

 

Do you have kids?

 

 

Yeah, I do have kids. What sort of implication are you trying to make about me?

 

I also know a lot about the criminal justice system and just as much about the news media. I know that one is based on facts and only facts and the other is based on supposition, assumption, and storytelling. They don't exactly mix. I don't have a ton of faith in the story news media sources tell me and even less in people who accept what they say as if it were gospel.

 

I also learned to make up my own mind and I never do that based on half stories. Once the whole story comes out I'll make a judgment. Anything else is speculation based on less than complete facts. That's what's reckless.

 

Does he seem guilty? Yes. Does he seem to be a monster? Yes. Is seeming like something and being proven to be something the same thing?

 

He may be guilty. There seems to be a likelihood that's the case. There's no reason to rush to that judgment based on how you would react or what you think you would do in the same situation, when there are actually facts and evidence that have yet to be presented and will remove the need to role play our way to condemnation.

 

What about a mom?

 

Do you have one of those?

 

 

She loves slabs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing