Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

Being dishonest once more as I never come close to using the word massive that came out of your British rear end.

However dozens of ships and a warship with the loss of most of it crew is not all that small even if not "massive".

If you weren't such an idiot I would gladly accept that I was wrong in saying that there were 'no' American losses, and if another American asks me to I will apologise.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that it was in America's interests for Britain to continue fighting the Nazis. Roosevelt was smart enough to realise that Nazi Germany posed a great threat to American democracy. And all of the loans were paid back. Every loan has an element of risk, as the banks who lent to Greece are now finding out, and this loan was no different.

It also doesn't change the fact that your idea of America fighting the war to save British 'asses' is pure fantasy.

Spendi: "Are you deliberately missing the point ed? "

All of those things you point out, whether true or imagined, are a maverick's dream. There are only a few facts truly pertinent to the case. That MJ was a star and not just some nobody is, in the end, irrelevant. It is about casual abuse of a patient to the point of death. If Hitler had gone on trial for his crimes, one might take your arguments in his favor. Ultimately, some laws are best not ignored.

Would you care to find anywhere where I stated that the only reason for our aid was a deep love for your country?

It sure however was not for any economic gain as you had claimed in order to try to down play our aid. Your down playing even went to the extend of claiming that we was not placing men and ships at risk to aid you.

No sane leader would risk that amount of resources to a country that had a wonderful chance of not existing in the very near future except for a puppet state to the Nazis for economic gain !!!!!!!!

So you're now questioning Roosevelt's sanity. I suppose that's not at all ridiculous coming from someone who claims that History has a mind.

Your logic or lack of same is breathe taking.........

You had openly claimed in order to down play our aid that the reason that we aided you was for economic gain and on it face that is nonsense given the situation at the time.

We had many reasons for aiding you but economic gain was very very low down on the list!!!!!!!

If that was the main reason for granting you aid it would not had been done.

So the main reason was insanity. What about History's mind. Let's not forget that this whole spat arose when I responded to Spendi agreeing with him about closer European integration, which considering over half our trade is with Europe is not an unreasonable attitude.

You then took this personally, and started going on about how you, had saved our 'asses,' and that forever more we should acknowledge (you personally) some sort of fealty. This isn't about our country's relative war records, but that you are outraged that anybody should ever disagree with you. It's almost as if you think that you have some sort of latter day papal infallability. At the same time you seem to think that you should be granted an aura of hushed reverence and respect just by virtue of who you are. You lecture other people on your notions of freedom, and cannot comprehend that other people's definitions may not match yours.

Your bullying self-righteous attitude wouldn't be so bad if your sentences didn't sound like they've been shat out of a warthog's arse. Some of your ideas are particularly repulsive, particularly those towards women and children. You're probably one of the most loathsome people I've every had the misfortune to come across, and until you show other people some respect you don't deserve any whatsover.

You would not exist in your current state as a nation if not for our aid given in your time of need and that is the end point of the matter.

I know that some people had the charming habit of not be grateful for aid and in fact they tend to be resentful that they needed the aid in the first place and therefore turn on the aid givers.

Down playing the aid that was given as not being all that important or not being given for the "right" reasons.

This work sometimes both in families/friends and between nations also.

I had no idea that British had such people before getting involved in this discussion.

My feelings was that we was brothers in arms and we did and do have a very special relationship that is not share with most countries because of our long history beginning when we was colonies of the "mother" country and the blood shed together in two world wars.

If you took a poll I believe that most Americans had similar feelings toward the UK an had such feelings since the end of WW2 at least.

It would be sad and shocking to find that the English are becaming more like the French in regard to being not grateful for help given when needed.

It is not. Nobodies cannot pay $150, 000 a month for a private physician. MJ is a very special case and treating it the same as if the dead person was a nobody is simply grandstanding.

The reference to Hitler is ridiculous because Dr. Murray is not accused of exterminating millions of people and bringing Europe to its knees.

Which laws are you claiming Dr Murray violated? I feel sure he did his very best for MJ.

If you come to the UK and start going on about the Battle of New Orleans, insisting that we all go down on bended knee to thank you for saving our 'asses,' and at the same time apologise for our perceived lack of 'freedoms' you'll find I'm fairly mainstream in my opinion.

You got to be kidding me his very best would had been to refused to treat him in the manner MJ wished to be treated for a sleep disorder and not leaving him unmonitored on top of that when he was at risk.

The law he violated was the Flordia manslaugther statute.

:

.


And if you came to the colonies and stated that we gave you aid before Pearl Harbor for the $$$$$$$ and that you would be better off depending on and having close relationships with such European nations as France or Germany I am sure you would be told directly the same thing I been telling you.

The laws he violated have been pointed out on this thread numerous times, by more than one poster. I will not repeat it here. You are thinking the big time law breakers ought to walk, but it does not matter what happens to poor no names.

Look Bill--the US would have bent every sinew of its being had Hitler looked like establishing his regime in Great Britain and European peace established under Nazi rule. Imagine the industrial and scientific might of Europe being directed by a man bent on a thousand year Reich. He truly would have been in charge of an empire on which the sun never sets.

Your population was 132 million in 1940. Widely spread.

That is not at all what I am thinking. I think the incident was an accident. There was no intent as far as I can see.

As a matter of fact a lot of big time law breakers do walk and the conditions in your jails that we have been shown does suggest that you don't care what happens to poor no names.

It would not had been good to had Hitler in such a position to say the least but such a large empire taken by force would not had likely had held together very long or been peaceful.

Upon Hitler death at worst it would had broken up in the manner of Alexander the Great Empire did and there is a strong likelihood that we could had rode it out in the same manner as we did in the case of the more stability USSR empire.

In fact after the Germany army had got done with dealing with the Russians who know if they would had the force needed to keep Europe under control or it would had been the same problem on a must larger scale that Napoleon had in Spain.

In other word and to sum up your fate while important did not one way or another seal our fate and we could had allow you to had gone down the tubes.

In our law, there are consequenses for results, caused by negligence, drunk driving, reckless conduct and the like. Intent is not even considered.

True in the same state as the good doctor trial a young 19 olds woman got drunk and hit the car of a 63 woman at a very high rate of speed killing the older woman and is now facing the same charge as Dr. Murray.

No one think that it was not an accident or the young lady had intend to harm the other woman.

What do you think gives you the right to stop closer European integration, and what difference do you think it will make to you anyway?

If you don't even know what specific law he was charged under, and which he was subsequently convicted of violating, what the hell are you doing in this thread?

You didn't watch or closely follow the trial, you are unfamiliar with the crime he was charged with, you seem unacquainted with all of the evidence the jury considered in reaching it's unanimous verdict, and you further seem ignorant of medical malpractice issues and ethical and appropriate standards of medical care, as defined by the medical profession, as well as state law, which help to define Murray's gross negligence, yet you think this was a "show trial", with a biased judge, and "shyster lawyers" that pinned an innocent man to the wall and convicted him?

Do you really expect anyone to take your remarks seriously?

A medical "accident" due to a doctor's extreme negligence is definitely malpractice, and, in some instances, a doctor's reckless and extremely negligent actions are additionally considered criminal--particularly when they kill someone--and that's what this trial was about. It focused on one doctor's actions, as well as his failures to act, all of which involved gross negligence and reckless indifference for the welfare of another, and which resulted in that person's death, and a jury decided that the doctor's actions were consistent with California law regarding involuntary manslaughter.

And the trial is over.

Dr. Murray's lawyers can, and probably will, appeal the verdict, based on issues such as the evidence which the judge excluded prior to trial--none of which had anything to do with Conrad Murray's behavior with regard to Jackson.
I doubt they will be successful because they'd have to convincingly argue that the outcome, the verdict, would have been different if that evidence had been allowed. Since it all had to do with other doctors who treated Jackson, it really wouldn't significantly affect how the jury viewed Murray's actions regarding MJ's death. But, it's probably the only argument the defense can make, so they'll give it a shot.
And, you'll have to wait for an appeal decision to see which way it goes. But Dr Murray's legal rights are being fully protected.

For your sake, I hope you are never treated by a doctor who acts as recklessly or negligently as this one did in caring for his patient.

If you are interested in this topic, please stick to it. It's not about the NFL, or boxing, or performance-enhancing drugs, or racial issues, or any of the other irrelevancies that are issuing from your state of self-absorption.