Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

Stop European integration my I did not know that I was that powerful to even attempt such a task!!!!!!

This website is design for expressing opinions on issues and I expressed the opinion that tying the UK fate to other European powers and going away from the long standing British/US relationship is not a wise thing for your country to do, for many reasons one of them being who the hell was there for you when the **** hit the fan in the past. For that matter who would likely be there again if needed.

As far as what does it matter to me almost nothings except my wishes that the UK enjoy the best possible future as it was once the mother country to mine.

Would you please stick to the topic of this thread.

True, but it is divided into Forums and topics, so that specific issues/topics can be discussed at length in an organized manner.

You have a penchant for derailing threads--which disrupts the exchange of opinions related to the topic of the thread.

Please, stick to the topic. Start a new thread if there are other, totally unrelated, issues you'd like to pursue or discuss.

The young woman driver committed a crime by driving when drunk. What crime did Dr Murray commit in the furtherance of which his client died?

Firefly the issue came up on this thread for the reason that our British friend keep launching one personal attack after another on all threads base on his dislike for my opinions on the British/US relationship and it worth.

I could use the ignore function however this thread seem to had run it course with the Murray matter and there is nothing must that seems call for to say on the subject that is new.

Nor is there likely to be until the sentencing happen.

Ok Firefly to get on the subject of the good doctor I am guessing he will get around three years or so.

Look up California law regarding involuntary manslaughter.

It was posted earlier in this thread. It has been repeated several times. At this point, look it up yourself, if you are really interested in an answer to your question.

You seem to have rather significant problems with both memory and comprehension.

... but his mum loves him and goes out to watch the Queen on Sundays.

you forgot obfuscation...

He practiced his trade/profession in a completely reckless and careless manner that resulted in the unnecessary death of his patient.

Causing a death in such a manner is a crime in and of itself.

Let see if I go out in as field where it is allow to fire a gun but instead of firing at a target that had a backstop I fire at a target that had no backstop and in the direction of homes in the distant.

The result was the killing of an old lady in her kitchen.

Now the following elements come into play.

Did I know or should had known that a bullet from my firearm could carry that far?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good doctor was aware of the risks he was running in treating MJ in the manner he did and that MJ could indeed die under his treatment.


Would a person with my level of skill and knowledge in the handling of firearms take the risk of firing in the directions of the homes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No medical witnesses indicate that they would had treated MJ at his home with the equipments and under the condition then existing in the home.


Did I show other elements of being reckless and uncaring of the life and safety of others such as drinking while I handled the gun?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good doctor let the room to made phone calls leaving his patient un-monitor and if he had not done so the expert opinions where that MJ could had been stop from having a problem let alone dying.


To sum up but for the doctor treatment and complete uncaring recklessness in his monitoring MJ would be alive today.

That is a crime all by itself the same as my careless firing of my gun that ended up killing an old lady.

.

The UK must have similar laws on their books so it is odd that our friend seem to lack understanding on the subject.

Is there nobody in the US sticking up for Dr Murray?

The gun business is irrelevant just as the drunk driver was. Dr Murray was a qualified physician who could not have thought there was a serious risk of his patient dying. All treatments have risk whatever precautions are taken. Leaving aside his financial risk he would know the **** that would come down on him from many directions if MJ died. The man who killed the King of Pop. No way.

It doesn't feel right and save yourselves saying that it doesn't matter what I feel because I know it doesn't.

I don't think he would have been charged here.

Was it even a fair trial if Media had built a guilty atmosphere as the lawyer I saw claimed it had.

I saw the chief defence counsel say that he thought his client innocent of the charge in a private room. If I am so wrong why did such an experienced lawyer say that?

Were previous treatments with Propofol illegal? Were they reckless to the point of endangering life? I've read somewhere that there were 40 such treatments. Had a 25mg. dose become routine? Who is to say that the Propofol killed MJ?

You seem to not grasp that the doctor's intent was irrelevant to the legal matter.

The coroner--the medical examiner who did the autopsy.
The death was ruled a homicide. The cause of death was acute Propofol intoxication.

Oh, the warnings that accompany every bottle of Propofol make it quite clear that there is a serious risk of dying--as there is with any general anesthesia--unless certain precautions are taken when using this drug--and, as a "qualified physician", Murray is expected, by law, to know that. He is expected to know the effects of all drugs he administers to patients, and to use them only under appropriate conditions to insure their safety.

The question is not one of legality--Propofol is a legal drug which can be legally administered by a licensed physician. And whoever gave MJ Propofol before Dr Murray came along obviously didn't kill him with it.
Dr Murray performed a legal act but was grossly negligent in his legal obligations, as a physician, to his patient, and so grossly negligent, on numerous matters, that he substantially contributed to his patient's death--under California law, that's involuntary manslaughter.

It couldn't have been a very private room if you saw the defense lawyer say that. The man knew he was being observed. What on earth would you expect the defense counsel to say--that he's defending a guilty man?

Are you really this dumb, spendius? The issues you raise have either been rehashed, and answered, in this thread numerous times, or reflect sheer ignorance on your part, or are irrelevant, or are absurd given the facts of the case.

Sorry no other doctor seems to agree with that opinion and without the proper monitoring and equipments it is dangerous by it very nature.

But Firefly cover that in detail in her comments to you in her posting above.

For sure I am. Everybody who is anybody on A2K knows that.

If I'm not dumb where does that leave A2K's bigshots.

It stinks to me does this case. If it doesn't to you I think you have become detached in some way from something I am unable to describe.

I might have taken your "this stinks to me" comment a bit more seriously if you had truly researched everything.

I asked-



Why no answer? I can handle it if there is nobody. You won't upset me by telling me there is nobody.

She covers nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Hell Firefly and AM and I agree so if there are Americans who agree that Dr. Conrad is getting a bad deal they can not be many.

That's no answer but I'm glad you are reassured by being in the company of ff and AM.

It kind of worrisome to be in their company but that how it happen to be on this issue.

Now Spendius perhaps we could get JG to draw you a cartoon that would explain the situation to you as we all had given it a try on this thread.

Frankly the issue seem simple and straight forward to all the rest of us and it seems that the jury also agree with our opinion.

If you can not see it you can not see it...............