Tater Bros. cars seized.

[Valcazar]

He's said some egregious stuff in the past in some of his videos he's released. But it seems like a ''work'' that when clipped up comes off even worse. He's acting or playing a role. What I want to see if the prosecution can provide evidence beyond his words that wrong doings occurred...Physical evidence and witnesses...Something to convict them in a criminal trial.

This is a point I agree with.
He was obviously acting a role for his influencer status.
That doesn't mean nothing he said was true. Far from it.
It does mean that just pointing to his clips should be inadequate as the final say.

I have no idea how the Romanian court system works but this seems to be really dragging out...Like it's personal. Appears like they're trying to grind the brothers down.

I don't know either and what little I was able to look into wasn't super helpful.

The bit about pre-emptive custody showed it wasn't abnormal for that to happen but that there was also a LOT of criticism of that "normal" both within and without Romania.

I have no idea if the actual length of this all is normal in Romania, though, nor how the investigative stages move through the system and what burden of proof is on whom at what stage.

 

[Leimonis]

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court".

fun fact: Romania has a conviction rate of 94% for criminal offenses

 

[Robert Mugabe]

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court".

So why do you have a problem with that?

 

[Valcazar]

I'm pretty sure that the prosecution has the burden of proof at trial. Just on common sense "How else would it possibly work?" reasoning.

I'm not.
They must have it at SOME stage, but I'm not certain it is at trial.

 

[Valcazar]

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court".

Yeah, looking into it it seems the general principle is "innocent until proven guilty" throughout Europe, with the differences primarily in practical application of the concept.

 

[Valcazar]

You are convicting two men based on your opinion of them yet can't recognize how that's a problem.

Mandrill isn't "convicting" anyone.
He has no power to do so.

 

[Jenesis]

Please show proof of him saying these words or just stop talking. You are truly making yourself look like an A1 fool.

JD: Show me proof!!!!

squeezer: posts proof

JD: Someone else show me proof.

Doesn’t matter if it is presented to you or not, you simply ignore people you don’t agree with. And you don’t agree with this. So it doesn’t matter who shows it, you will simply ignore it and them.

Probably myself included now.

 

[Valcazar]

In his warped mind they are already guilty based on what the tv said so while it isn't an official conviction, its a conviction none the less.

No it isn't.
That's not how the word is used.

Is he already convinced they are guilty?
Clearly so.
As is his absolute right.

 

[Jenesis]

No it isn't.
That's not how the word is used.

Is he already convinced they are guilty?
Clearly so.
As is his absolute right.

He likes to forgot that conviction and someone’s person opinion are two completely different things.

 

[Valcazar]

He likes to forgot that conviction and someone’s person opinion are two completely different things.

It's the "beyond a reasonable doubt is the only standard that counts if I like the person" theory.

So if mandrill were the sitting judge in this case are you saying he would be keeping an open mind and taking time to consider the evidence?

He isn't the sitting judge in this case.

 

[Valcazar]

Ok so how would you have preferred that I worded my statement?

I think " In his warped mind they are already guilty based on what the tv said " is fine.
That's what you are accusing him of.

Obviously you would add "and that's bad" in some way to the sentence.

 

[richaceg]

JD: Show me proof!!!!

squeezer: posts proof

JD: Someone else show me proof.

Doesn’t matter if it is presented to you or not, you simply ignore people you don’t agree with. And you don’t agree with this. So it doesn’t matter who shows it, you will simply ignore it and them.

Probably myself included now.

I don't think squeezer really watched the video...the admittance of "pimping" in Andrew Tate's video was how he was making money off streaming webcam girls they are not really exchanging services with guys... As he explains it...these chicks he has chats with guys...they have a keyboard on screen, but Andrew and his brother are the ones conversing with the subscribers....girls are just there in their underwear or naked pretending to type on keyboard and gives subscribers the impression they are conversing with ladies...LoL... that's what Andrew admitted to "pimping"... Andrew Tate is a loudmouth who made his fame and fortune for acting tough (he must be...he was an mma fighteer) and act as if he's a gigolo...it is all a ploy to gain notoriety amongst Beta males....If you fall for his schtick...he makes money..if you don't...well...good on you for not falling for it...that's his whole scheme.. all in all...it wasn't evidence LoL...

If what squeezer posted is that long and we don't hear Andrew really admitted pimping minor ladies...IMO...Mandrill suffered from "premature evaluation"...

 

[The Oracle]

I don't think squeezer really watched the video...the admittance of "pimping" in Andrew Tate's video was how he was making money off streaming webcam girls they are not really exchanging services with guys... As he explains it...these chicks he has chats with guys...they have a keyboard on screen, but Andrew and his brother are the ones conversing with the subscribers....girls are just there in their underwear or naked pretending to type on keyboard and gives subscribers the impression they are conversing with ladies...LoL... that's what Andrew admitted to "pimping"... Andrew Tate is a loudmouth who made his fame and fortune for acting tough (he must be...he was an mma fighteer) and act as if he's a gigolo...it is all a ploy to gain notoriety amongst Beta males....If you fall for his schtick...he makes money..if you don't...well...good on you for not falling for it...that's his whole scheme.. all in all...it wasn't evidence LoL...

It's a ''work''...Or this is what it appears to be...If it isn't then actually produce physical evidence showing it.

The lynch mob is all worked up and a lather here though...Now I'm sure if the finger was pointed against them, they would want the presumption of innocence. Of course maybe their hatred is a form of self flagellation.

 

[mandrill]

What ever happened to reserving judgement until that day comes? You are convicting two men based on your opinion of them yet can't recognize how that's a problem.

I didn't, Mr Comprehension-Challenged.

If they get off fairly and squarely at trial - i.e. without intimidating witnesses - I'll tip my cap to the justice system.

But they've made numerous very public incriminating statements and have raised no legit defences, aside from denying everything and claiming to be unfairly victimized. So it doesn't look great for them.

Like the Taters, you have raised no real arguments and have been very, very troll-y all day. I may stop responding to you for a while, unless you raise your game.

 

[mandrill]

No it isn't.
That's not how the word is used.

Is he already convinced they are guilty?
Clearly so.
As is his absolute right.

Actually, I'm not. It's perfectly possible that they could get off when the evidence is examined closely.

But on the facts as they have been revealed so far, they are probably going to be convicted.

 

[mandrill]

It's called malicious prosecution and it's being done on behalf of the powers that be in hopes of silencing a voice of reason.

This "voice of reason"-ness wouldn't have anything to do with the Taters' major role in stirring up the recent UK anti immigrant riots, would it?

 

[mandrill]

x.com

x.com

Here's a nice little excerpt re Tater #2.

 

[mandrill]

Very very interesting. You sound like you know quite a bit about the basis of their defense. Almost like you read their legal documents or wait....are you their lawyer? Because you sure seem to have a whole lot of information that isn't available to the public.

Since all you do is recycle information and continue to repeat yourself I would consider that to be a blessing. I already fucked you off when I admitted that you were right, the tate brothers are the devils spawn and that they deserve the gallows. I had genuinely hoped that was the end of you responding but here we are. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you spend the rest of the day playing in traffic leading to tomorrow being a much quieter day

You're a time waster and are going on ignore.

 

[Jenesis]

I don't think squeezer really watched the video...the admittance of "pimping" in Andrew Tate's video was how he was making money off streaming webcam girls they are not really exchanging services with guys... As he explains it...these chicks he has chats with guys...they have a keyboard on screen, but Andrew and his brother are the ones conversing with the subscribers....girls are just there in their underwear or naked pretending to type on keyboard and gives subscribers the impression they are conversing with ladies...LoL... that's what Andrew admitted to "pimping"... Andrew Tate is a loudmouth who made his fame and fortune for acting tough (he must be...he was an mma fighteer) and act as if he's a gigolo...it is all a ploy to gain notoriety amongst Beta males....If you fall for his schtick...he makes money..if you don't...well...good on you for not falling for it...that's his whole scheme.. all in all...it wasn't evidence LoL...

If what squeezer posted is that long and we don't hear Andrew really admitted pimping minor ladies...IMO...Mandrill suffered from "premature evaluation"...

Pimping is not only making girls have sex with men. Pimping is forcing someone to do something of a sexual nature and taking their money.

So when a girl makes 40k on the webcam (Tate bros talking to men is irrelevant the girls themselves were on the cams) and you force her to give you 36k of it - you are pimping.

 

[squeezer]

Please show proof of him saying these words or just stop talking. You are truly making yourself look like an A1 fool.

Oh man, can someone else post the video so this poor soul can be enlightened? LMAO