Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

Yeah Spendi, what is you point?

Percy at the porcelain is the reflex answer.

But my actual point is to what extent does the LA establishment prosecute to fill its own boots with taxpayer $$$$$$s? It certainly seemed to have had a good touch when some young lad alleged MJ had felt down his underpants.

It's the only possible answer.

It your BBC and your London Times and similar sources that is spouting what you are claiming as rubbish.

So you had not faith in your main news sources?

Was there more money to be made by ALLEGING that,
or by NOT alleging it???????





David

Unlike U, we wanna keep a free country here, for a while,
until we degenerate into the Borg,
along with the rest of the world.

Star Trek's not real Dave.

We (our grandchildren) will all MAKE the Borg real.

Not me; my life is behind me. Death from old age will be my safety.

I don't want to argue with you Dave, let's just agree to differ on how we define freedom.

U can define the Borg and the commies as being "free" if u wanna.

I don't want to argue with you Dave.

U have the freedom of self restraint in silence.

Each prosecution that goes to trial spends taxpayer's $$$--particularly when expert witnesses, or other services/people who are not employed by the government, are necessary to the case.

People who work in the D.A.'s office are on a salary, so neither they, nor their office, benefit financially from the prosecution of particular cases, or any cases.

Defense attorneys, hired by the defendant, are the only ones who benefit financially, but they are not being paid with taxpayer's $$$ other than the taxpayer who is the defendant.

So, I fail to see any logic in the points you are making.

Did you just wake up and notice that money makes the world go 'round?
You are shouting it from the rooftops as though it's some new discovery.

But that general, and well worn, observation really has no specific relationship to the Conrad Murray trial.
Day in and day out, the L.A. D.A.'s office prosecutes cases with no publicity, and defendants that no one has heard of--that's their job. They prosecute any criminal cases they think they can win. That's what the taxpayers pay them to do, and want them to do, and the Conrad Murray case was no exception.

The coroner ruled the death of MJ a homicide, and established the drugs involved in that homicide with the same scientific accuracy as would be used in matching the striations on a bullet to a gun used in a homicide.
A death that is ruled a homicide certainly establishes the conditions for opening a criminal investigation, and the results of that investigation pointed to the involvement of Murray as the one who obtained that drug and personally administered it to MJ in an extremely reckless and negligent manner that resulted in death. It would have been outrageous if this man had not been prosecuted.
And, in this case, the prosecution did a top-notch job--everything about their arguments, presentations, and examination, and cross-examination, of witnesses, was excellent--the taxpayers have every reason to be very satisfied with the job performance of this team.

Give over ff. That's a PR presentation like on that supposedly conservative channel Fox.

I think of the legal profession as a whole hunting in a pack. Performance art. I see the NFL in the same way.

And then you argue in the rest of the post to the opposite effect.

I wonder what "give over" means????


Do u impugn its conservatism ?





David

"Give over" means "pack it in" or "give it a rest" or "give us a break".

I don't impugn Fox's conservatism because it doesn't have any Dave. It's a Murdoch ship. It exploits weakness.

Can't you guess? English is and International language there's different varieties all over the Globe. We don't all talk like New Yorkers. Over this you do show a remakable lack of intellectual curiosity, and I think it's deliberate.

When Spendi says 'Give over,' he's using a dialect variant from the North, notably Yorkshire and Lancahire. I suppose your New York equivalent would be 'Baloney.' And, before you ask, we don't eat Give over sandwiches.

What the verdict means is that doctors who take a chance will be inhibited from doing so. I don't believe there are many doctors who are not doing their best for the patient. And the best ones use a bit of intuition. Now fewer will. And that could kill very large numbers because anybody who knows anything at all about medical advances knows that intuitive risk taking has led to most of the great advances.

The legal profession does not give a shite about patients. It only has its eyes on the main chance. Lawyers are not scientists. They are the ones who wrote the labels on the bottles. Now they are the ones controlling treatment.

Good luck folks. The first bloke who tried an anaesthetic tried it on himself and wasn't certain he would come to. One guy injected himself with syphilis. Another poked a needle into his eye.

firefly, if she was a doctor, would never risk going beyond the instructions on the bottle. Safety first for firefly. Only give what is recommended on the label. Lawyers rule.

Who is to say that MJ wouldn't have died at that point if he had never taken any drugs in his whole life. Nobody is the answer to that.