come to texas, shoot an escort, get away scott free

[chaseter]

Yes I can see the comparison; a habitually battered wife kills her husband after years of torment is certainly the same as a dude shooting a hooker he found on Craigslist one night. I'm not sure i agree with the jury's verdict in the first case (due almost solely to the number of shots), but you can't compare that to some guy running after a hooker with a gun because she refused to "service" him.

How do you know she was habitually battered? They didn't have any evidence to support that. All they had were character testimonies.

I am not saying Sheehan was guilty or innocent, just proving a point that the jury here had overwhelming evidence against the defendant but interpreted the evidence and the law. Both were pretty clear cut cases of murder. Did the guy in TX need to kill that lady? No. Did Sheehan need to kill her husband? No. She shot him 11 times with two different guns. Sounds plausible? According to the jury, yes.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Since you're I assume a republican do you ever lament the fact Obama's your president or feel embarrassed about it? I wasn't doing anything different. And yeah it was embarrassing to travel just as the Iraq war was starting, and have everyone assume you agree with it just because of your nationality. I wasn't trying to take any high ground, just explain I didn't like him or agree with his actions (I was exaggerating when I said I was apologizing on behalf of the country, but I did feel people were judging me based on my country's actions).

I definitely don't agree with a lot of Obama's views, but I also don't agree with a lot of things said or done by Bush, McCain, or the cast of misfit Republicans vying for the job in 2012, either. How about as a truce, I agree that no matter what your views or politics are, you are morally superior to Newt Gringrich?

Seriously, that guy sucks, but yeah, I am going to stop saying anything related to politics now.

 

[chaseter]

JJJ, you feel the need to start apologizing for Obama's drone strikes killing innocent lives within a 20 meter radius of a hellfire missile and maiming countless others nearby when you travel abroad?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I definitely don't agree with a lot of Obama's views, but I also don't agree with a lot of things said or done by Bush, McCain, or the cast of misfit Republicans vying for the job in 2012, either. How about as a truce, I agree that no matter what your views or politics are, you are morally superior to Newt Gringrich?

Seriously, that guy sucks, but yeah, I am going to stop saying anything related to politics now.

Haha okay that sounds good. And I will agree you're morally superior to Rod Blagojevich! Anyway we have something more important in common. We're both big fans of Donnie Darko.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

JJJ, you feel the need to start apologizing for Obama's drone strikes killing innocent lives within a 20 meter radius of a hellfire missile and maiming countless others nearby when you travel abroad?

chaseter, you feel the need to drift off-topic because your argument fell apart faster than a Texas pulled-pork sandwich?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

How about the driver in San Diego, CA that ran over a nanny (killing her) and critically injuring a toddler after she feel asleep and ran a stop sign? Her sentence...48 hours in jail. I think that was this week.

TX amirite?

Just because another state is guilty of bum****ery doesn't make Texas any less guilty of their bum****ery.

And as a native Californian, and someone who plans on moving back to California in the not too distant future, and someone who loves California, I'll be the first to admit that California is quite guilty of bum****ery and cluster**** insanity.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Are you ever going to answer my question? If it's legal, why did it go to court? There are no litigated self defense cases if no law is broken. The judge throws out the case. If no law is broken, there is no trial. The defense would have it tossed out in a second.

Or, did the jurors interpret a case based on laws and presented evidence or lack of evidence? Ya know, like every case ever.

George Zimmerman is going to trial in Florida for an act that we know he committed.

The trial isn't to determine whether he committed the act or not. The trial is to determine whether his actions were justified under Florida law or not.

That is the same thing here. A person can be put on trial when their actions are known. Trials determine the level to which a person's actions were legal.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

chaseter, you feel the need to drift off-topic because your argument fell apart faster than a Texas pulled-pork sandwich?

It's chaseter. He's the biggest contrarian on the board I know.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

George Zimmerman is going to trial in Florida for an act that we know he committed.

The trial isn't to determine whether he committed the act or not. The trial is to determine whether his actions were justified under Florida law or not.

That is the same thing here. A person can be put on trial when their actions are known. Trials determine the level to which a person's actions were legal.

Nell hit the nail on the head here.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

Are you ever going to answer my question? If it's legal, why did it go to court? There are no litigated self defense cases if no law is broken. The judge throws out the case. If no law is broken, there is no trial. The defense would have it tossed out in a second.

Or, did the jurors interpret a case based on laws and presented evidence or lack of evidence? Ya know, like every case ever.

It has to go to court so the defence can prove she actually stole the money.

Be it the murder or the theft the legal system has to have a trial to decide which of these actual happened. If they can't prove she stole the money then it's murder but they did so the guy walks under this state law.