9
   

Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:55 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
So what does he get - a measly four years?
Thay say that it will be a lot less than that,
because of prison overcrowding.

I think house arrest woud be OK.
Dr. Murray is not a danger to Californians.

He is not likely to chase them and inject them
with Propofal against their will.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
hippocratic oath says otherwise.
The jury did the right thing
Will u reveal to us, Farmer,
whether or not that oath was administered to the defendant ??





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:04 pm
@firefly,
I asked what risk Dr Murray poses to the public at this point. I did not ask what can legitimately be regarded as a threat to public safety. I know that damn near anything can legitimately be regarded as a threat to public safety. You taking your car out for example. And when your potential victims are not begging and pleading to be run down.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:07 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
not one you can grasp, apparently...
That 's a very ez out for u, Rocky.

With all respect, I think it 'd be more honorable
to withdraw the accusation if u don 't wanna do the research,
rather than to toss off an insult against my intelligence.





David
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't have time to play semantics with you dave.

you pretend stupidity where others find thought a lot.

your arguments about the oath ring false to me for someone educated in law.

but the it's all about the money part of you shines through brightly...
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:39 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I asked what risk Dr Murray poses to the public at this point.

The judge considers people convicted of that offense to be a threat to public safety--that's what he said. He also considered Murray to be a potential flight risk now that he has been convicted since he has ties outside the state.

The defense did not really argue against it. Their request that he continue to remain free on bail, until his sentencing, was weakly delivered.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:52 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
I don't have time to play semantics with you dave.
In other words:
u don 't have time to support your allegations.
U think that its enuf for u to HOPE that no one will challenge them.




Rockhead wrote:
you pretend stupidity where others find thought a lot.[??????]
Maybe YOU know what that means . . . .



Rockhead wrote:
your arguments about the oath ring false to me for someone educated in law.
I can't control how things RING to u, Rocky,
but from what I 've heard from medical doctors,
only about half of the medical schools administer that oath.
The other schools just forget about it. Thay don 't bring it up.




Rockhead wrote:
but the it's all about the money part of you shines through brightly...
Thank u; that 's important,
but there is also the matter of personal freedom. That is even MORE important.





David
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
personal freedom


...involves "rights" AND "responsibilities".

Your posts are heavy on the former but tend to ignore the latter.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:25 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

There's a reasonable doubt to me that Dr Murray was not evil and thus doesn't belong in jail. The NASCAR organisers must know that somebody is going to get killed in their money-spinning spectacular. So must the fans.

Do MJ's fans have a role in his death with their high expectations of his performances?


You don't get it do you? NASCAR drivers themselves know of the dangers they're subjecting themselves to - MJ did not! He never had a clue and fully trusted Murray who is a physician by license. That's the difference, an innocent man trusted a professional and paid for it with his life.

All your comparisons lack similarity. You either don't understand what the real issue is here, or you are just playing devil's advocate to entertain yourself. I doubt that your too dense to understand it though....
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:28 pm
@fresco,
DAVID wrote:
personal freedom
fresco wrote:
...involves "rights" AND "responsibilities".

Your posts are heavy on the former but tend to ignore the latter.
I deny your premise.

In some cases rights DO involve responsibilities, e.g., in a bilateral contract; quid pro quo.
Many rights have no concomitant responsibilities.


I have many rights regarding which I have no responsibilities.
For instance:
I have the right to express my opinion of diving for pearls,
or of a baseball team, but I have no responsibility to do so.

I have the right to recite the alphabet,
but no responsibility to do so.

I have the right to eat my dessert,
but no responsibility to do so.

I have the right to vote in school board elections,
but no responsibility to do so. ( I have never done so.)

I have a right to listen to the music of my choice
from my records, but no responsibility to do so.
I can freely ignore those records; I ofen do.

I have the right to watch the sun set from my backyard,
but no responsibility to do so. In other words:
I cannot be held to account for failing to execute that right.

There is no visible end to the list of rights that I have
devoid of any responsibility to do.

WHATAYATHINK of that ???????



David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:30 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Signature
Until a man uncovers himself he cannot see.
Does this mean that all men r blind, except nudists ?





David
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:30 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
personal freedom


...involves "rights" AND "responsibilities".

Your posts are heavy on the former but tend to ignore the latter.


Yes, let's repeat that!
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:32 pm
@CalamityJane,
Or he personally knows the "good" doctor..
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:36 pm
@CalamityJane,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
personal freedom


...involves "rights" AND "responsibilities".

Your posts are heavy on the former but tend to ignore the latter.
CalamityJane wrote:
Yes, let's repeat that!
Please see my RESPONSE to that, in refutation thereof in Post: # 4,786,895, on this page.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:37 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
Or he personally knows the "good" doctor..
ME ??
I have never met him.

I 'm only discussing principles of freedom in America.





David
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:39 pm
@Linkat,
Hehe, I doubt it! Spendius doesn't travel, so anything outside of his 20 yard peripheral vision doesn't exist.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 03:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I specifically refer to the concept of "personal freedom" which I take to be premised on the assumption that I exercise it with responsibility of not curtailing the well-being of others. Thus there is an argument that my freedom to get drunk (say) is not "a right" if it impinges on my childrens' upbringing (say).
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 04:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Not you - that guy that keeps so vehemently defending him to such as extreme - he sounds as if he is a lover or something of Conrad.

Possibility that he too is addicted to this drug and receives it via Conrad - would explain much.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 04:04 pm
@CalamityJane,
Well it is just odd - how strongly he is defending Dr. Conrad. Almost insanely or passionately so.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 04:07 pm
@Linkat,
spendi is british.

and passionately full of frilly hot air...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 09:11:05