Smooches!!!!! I 
your penis.
Look, all I'm saying is that it's silly that I'm being singled out as if all I do is follow people around when, in actuality, there are several threads in which others responded to my posts and told me that I was wrong; I'm not always the instigator, and even when I am, it's not a one-way street.
Another hard-headed response... You wanted to introduce another social experiment into the military. Now that they've permitted homosexuals in the military, the military must address all of the social issues that this social group brings along with them. As the military must now deal with these new distractions, whether it be the establishment of new policies or the expenses associated with responding, defending, providing or subsidizing additional benefits and accommodations to account for this new social baggage, the military undoubtedly becomes diluted and less efficient.
The military has a process which breaks down people and rebuilds them. Felons are a particular social group with issues that may pose problems in the military, but they're allowed into the Army and Marines, and it apparently works.
Now as far as any "social issues" that homosexuals may or may not bring to the table later down the road, such as demanding more rights, additional benefits, etc., that's simply a slippery slope argument. Just because you grant them the ability to openly serve in the military doesn't mean that you also have to grant them X, Y and Z when they ask for it.
And, again, as much as you may think this is a "hard-headed response," your slippery slope arguments about new benefits and the funding for those benefits were not part of the initial discussion. What was focused upon was whether the presence of openly homosexual servicemen would affect the efficiency of the military. You brought up issues about heterosexuals feeling uncomfortable in foxholes, medical issues regarding HIV/AIDS, and generally how the mere presence of homosexuals (not the benefits that they may subsequently request) would affect the military.
Yeah... All over the news... And, you were glued to your TV screen.
They have the interwebs nowadays. It's a system of tubes in which I can read news articles that interest me when I want, as opposed to having to be glued to a TV in order to catch what it is that I want to see at a specific time of day that may be ideal for me.
Seriously, when you jumped in and started posting, did you really analyze all of the facts, all of the evidence and all of the witness testimony prior to taking your defiant position? I don't believe it.
I didn't just "jump in" and lecture anyone about how they were wrong. THS asked if any attorneys thought the jury instructions affected the verdict.
Did you go senile and forget what my first substantive post stated? I referenced the fact that there was no DNA on the duct tape, no DNA from blood in the trunk, only witness testimony regarding a smell in the trunk vs. an expert on bodily decomposition saying that a body could not have decomposed in the trunk, and no cause of death. On that lack of evidence alone, you can't convict her of murder, manslaughter, negligence, or abuse, which I also stated in my initial post.
Did I investigate
every piece of evidence? Of course not...I don't need to know every minute detail of the trial to tell you that there wasn't enough evidence for a murder conviction. No cause of death? No DNA linking you to the body? No eyewitness testimony of the death, or of you with the body, or of anyone with the body? No time of death to compare with your alibi(s)? Sorry, but that alone pretty much prevents a murder conviction.
And I don't believe that you reviewed all of the evidence either, so unless you're going to willingly admit that you're a hypocrite who thinks it's okay for you to take part in discussions when you haven't reviewed every single detail, but that it's not okay for others, then I don't see what the big deal is.
Ummm... I believe that the surveillance video was linked within the article that I had originally posted at the start of that thread.
I wouldn't know; you just posted the text of the article.
To further clarify, I did watch the video prior to making my original post.
I wouldn't know; JR asked you if you had seen the video and you never answered his question.
I also did NOT adamantly defend the person who shot the thug. I sympathized with his postion. That was not pontificating on the legal merits of the case. As I explained, I've been involved in a few potentially armed conflicts. I sympathize with the situation and potential state-of-mind of the victim. I don't believe the video adequately establishes the intent of the victim to murder someone. It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback and believe that a reasonable person would behave in a level-headed manner, but when you're thrown into a situation like that, keeping a level-head is about the hardest thing to do.
Well, I think that's where the problem lies: you were speaking with attorneys, and you suggested to us what it is that a "reasonable person" would or should do. There's a legal standard for reasonableness when it comes to self defense. It's not really a bright line statutory rule (except in some instances, such as states with Castle Doctrine statutes and similar laws which spell out exactly when you can use deadly force), but it's detailed enough in various common law opinions that there's a pretty solid idea there.
So, when you tell us that the video wasn't enough to show intent to murder, and that his actions seemed "reasonable" to you, you're throwing down a lot of legal jargon that sets off alarms in our head. You may personally think what he did was reasonable, but according to the law it wasn't. You may not think that the video showed an intent to use deadly force which would likely result in death, but according to the law it did.
Sugar, your immense noodle couldn't make my ear sore...
AWK thinks differently, and his butthole is huuuuuugggeeee.
127 Replies
17056 Views