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

[Sawyer]

Well, how good were the ribs is the question.

They said the meat was a bit dry, put too much A1 on the ribs and the cook was offended.

 

[BestGirl]

I think you need to read harder.

Or here let me make it easy...overwhelming evidence yet the perpetrator walks away free with murder. How many times have you heard that?

I read your article. Prosecutors claim there's overwhelming evidence the defendant committed the murder. The defense said otherwise. The jury agree with the defense. What's the problem here?

I'll resummarize my argument for you:

In California, it is not okay to commit murder.

In Texas, it is okay to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they stole $150 and ran away from you.

Do you see the problem here?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

What chaseter fails to understand is the case in Cali was a problem with 12 people, the jury. The case in Texas was a problem with the whole system. It wasn't a matter of him being found guilty or innocent of a crime by his peers. His crime basically wasn't a crime in the first place. C'mon people.... it isn't hard to see the distinction here.

 

[chaseter]

So OJ getting off wasn't a failure of the system? The system includes jurors of your peers.........................................which is....the exact....same....thing....here.

 

[chaseter]

I read your article. Prosecutors claim there's overwhelming evidence the defendant committed the murder. The defense said otherwise. The jury agree with the defense. What's the problem here?

I'll resummarize my argument for you:

In California, it is not okay to commit murder.

In Texas, it is okay to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they stole $150 and ran away from you.

Do you see the problem here?

What a completely idiotic overstatement.

If you used your reading comprehension, the jury in the TX case said he was innocent. WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING.

So apparently it is ok to commit murder in CA using your logic if your wife cheats on you and you can't put on a glove found at the scene of the crime. The prosecutors in both cases just failed and the jury were idiots.

 

[BestGirl]

What a completely idiotic overstatement.

If you used your reading comprehension, the jury in the TX case said he was innocent. WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING.

So apparently it is ok to commit murder in CA using your logic.

I'll just leave you with JJJ's comment. If by now you don't understand what our problem with the verdict is and why it differs from the cases you cited you never will:

What chaseter fails to understand is the case in Cali was a problem with 12 people, the jury. The case in Texas was a problem with the whole system. It wasn't a matter of him being found guilty or innocent of a crime by his peers. His crime basically wasn't a crime in the first place. C'mon people.... it isn't hard to see the distinction here.

 

[chaseter]

If he didn't commit a crime in the first place, the judge would have thrown out the case.

Your response?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

If he didn't commit a crime in the first place, the judge would have thrown out the case.

Your response?

My response is you're still missing the point. In the CA case the person was found not guilty due to what the jury perceived as a lack of evidence (right or wrong they may be). In the TX case the jury found the man's actions justified under state law.

I really don't know what else there is to explain.

 

[chaseter]

If it's state law that you can kill hookers who take your money, why would this have went to court. Why would the DA file charges? Why did the judge not throw out the case if it's legal?

Or...did the jury interpret the case and make a decision based upon the defense and prosecution's presentations?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Well the verdict was good enough for the Judge. Why don't you take it up with him? Honestly man, you're hurt that people are piling on Texas which I can understand, and you're not listening to reason so it doesn't matter what anyone says to you. But you'd only have a point if you could cite an article about a clear murder in California where the killer was acquitted because his actions were justified under state law. Get back to us when you find one.

 

[chaseter]

So you can't answer my question? Your answer is...well it's good enough for the judge?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

So you can't answer my question? Your answer is...well it's good enough for the judge?

The result is all that matters. Again for the 18th time; the person in the CA case was found not guilty due to a lack of evidence. In the TX case they know the dude shot her, but it was found to be justified. Can you imagine if the Jury in the OJ case said "yeah we know he shot those people, but we think it's justified under state-law." THIS is what happened here. The fact it was litigated is beside the point and an attempt by you to create a distraction in order to win an unwinnable argument. Lots of self-defense cases are litigated at first.

 

[chaseter]

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.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I'm certainly embarrassed. When I travelled when Bush was in office I felt I had to apologize on behalf of my country. But that is a bit different, since that vote is based on an electoral college, not a popular vote and my state is the bluest of the blue.

Stuff like this pisses me off more than just about anything else. People always call conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) judgemental, but then run off at the mouth with this condescending, holier than thou crap.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Actually I did answer your question. They have to litigate in order to find out whether it's self-defense or not in the first place. That's what they did. They concluded it was self-defense. Cue outrage.

And by the way, a person doesn't go to trial if a law is broken. A trial is there to determine if a law has been broken.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to link me to a clear Cali homicide that was found to be justified under state law. I'll tell you what; it can even be after a trial.

 

[chaseter]

The argument was that it is apparently legal to do so. There is no case if it's legal. This was just another case of a jury making a decision based on evidence.

For the last time, if it was legal to kill hookers who take your money in TX, then this wouldn't have made it to jury selection and there would likely be more than one case in this thread of a fat guy killing a hooker who took his money and got acquitted.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Stuff like this pisses me off more than just about anything else. People always call conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) judgemental, but then run off at the mouth with this condescending, holier than thou crap.

How is it condescending?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

The argument was that it is apparently legal to do so. There is no case if it's legal.

I'm not going to debate you further because judging by your response time you don't put a lot of thought into your replies. I already explained the concept of trials. Repeatedly. A person was shot so they had a trial. I guess Texas at least still does THAT. But the fact there's a state-law on the books that's so loosely defined or lenient that the dude could be let go on self-defense is where the outrage comes from.

I'm not going to reply further until you produce that article we discussed, because honestly I have more productive debates with brick walls.

 

[chaseter]

Name one trial in the last 5 years where a verdict was determined where no law was broken.

 

[chaseter]

I also really didn't want to humor you in any way but here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/n...ed-husband-is-found-not-guilty-of-murder.html

kill your spouse and claim battered woman defense and you can't lose. Your husband can't say otherwise. That same law is on the books in almost every state, even CA.

 

[Donnie Darko]

How is it condescending?

Condescending probably was not the right word to use, since you weren't dumbing it down for us backwards red state residents. It was more just the implied moral high ground that liberals/blue states over conservatives, since you had to apologize for the entire country due to a Republican president and the comment about your state being bluest of blue or whatever. Having a few different political or social views doesn't make one person morally superior to another. I know horrible people on all sides of the political world.

 

[Donnie Darko]

kill your spouse and claim battered woman defense and you can't lose. Your husband can't say otherwise. That same law is on the books in almost every state, even CA.

Jody Arias would disagree. Then again, I guess you can only admit to lying to detectives so many times before the jury turns on you completely.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Condescending probably was not the right word to use, since you weren't dumbing it down for us backwards red state residents. It was more just the implied moral high ground that liberals/blue states over conservatives, since you had to apologize for the entire country due to a Republican president and the comment about your state being bluest of blue or whatever. Having a few different political or social views doesn't make one person morally superior to another. I know horrible people on all sides of the political world.

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).

 

[chaseter]

Jody Arias would disagree. Then again, I guess you can only admit to lying to detectives so many times before the jury turns on you completely.

Jody Arias' testimony contradicted itself because she told different accounts numerous times. If she had one story and didn't change, she would have won. The prosecution used that against her.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I also really didn't want to humor you in any way but here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/n...ed-husband-is-found-not-guilty-of-murder.html

kill your spouse and claim battered woman defense and you can't lose. Your husband can't say otherwise. That same law is on the books in almost every state, even CA.

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.