0
   

Is this an over-reaction or what?

 
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:39 am
As you well know, lots of things don't even get that far in the 'justice' system. Look at who gets away with what. Many times charges are considered but not laid, or are laid, but then dropped. Look at all the bungling that goes on (OJ comes to mind). .

You say the 'court found' a basis for a charge; I say it was the judge. He represents the court, but not all of them should have those jobs. It is merely my opinion that he is over-reacting.

What a waste of time and money. Just whom is this helping? What is it achieving?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:40 am
As you well know, lots of things don't even get that far in the 'justice' system. Look at who gets away with what. Many times charges are considered but not laid, or are laid, but then dropped. Look at all the bungling that goes on (OJ comes to mind). .

You say the 'court found' a basis for a charge; I say it was the judge. He represents the court, but not all of them should have those jobs. It is merely my opinion that he is over-reacting.

What a waste of time and money. Just whom is this helping? What is it achieving?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:41 am
As we all know, lots of things don't even get that far in the 'justice' system. Look at who gets away with what. Many times charges are considered but not laid, or are laid, but then dropped. Look at all the bungling that goes on (OJ comes to mind). .

You say the 'court found' a basis for a charge; I say it was the judge. He represents the court, but not all of them should have those jobs. It is merely my opinion that he is over-reacting.

What a waste of time and money. Just whom is this helping? What is it achieving?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:44 am
sorry about that! darn computer.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:49 am
I thought you were just being really, really, really emphatic! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:50 am
I thought she was getting so riled up her hands were shaking and she hit submit thrice!
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:51 am
I'm glad you guys are laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:02 am
Although it's a truism that justice is a system and not a result, in my opinion a case can at least be argued that defendant did in fact violate the law. Whether he said "pump" or "bomb" is an issue the trier of fact (i.e., judge and jury) can decide. They would be the ones presumably best able to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh their respective testimonies.

Totally aside from that, how do we know what other evidence may have gone into formulating this judge's decision? Maybe the defendant appeared shifty and deceptive. Maybe there were other witnesses whose testimony wasn't included in the article. Maybe there was other evidence not discussed. There are simply too many unknowns at this point for me to leap to the conclusion that in this instance some wild-eyed judge overreacted.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:07 am
It'd be good to know the history of this particular judge.

I mean, some are obviously tougher than others, might not have had anything to do with the case per se.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:16 am
Or he might be a zealot. Or a Bushist. Who knows?

I think when people are in a position of power, they should walk lightly. It's so easy to ruin someone's life over something that's easily explained.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:26 am
Every criminal ever caught had a perfectly reasonable explanation for his misdeeds.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:37 am
What was Dahmer's?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:44 am
Not having studied the case, I don't really know for certain, but I recall reading something at the time to the effect that he killed his male lovers to keep them from leaving him.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:52 am
ick. I thought he barely knew some of them - picked them up in bars. That's one twisted dude. I think I blocked a lot of the info out at the time. Too gruesome.

BTW, congrats on your recent wedding. It's a wonderful time, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:12 pm
Yes, that was Dahmers reason....didn't matter if he just met them...it was his way of having someone stay with him.

He experimented with ways to make someone a "zombie".

None of them worked very well.

OK, I'm not trying to be gross here....so don't read the rest of this if you think it'll upset you. But it does give you an idea of how he was trying to come up with ways to keep someone.





He drilled a hole in one man's head, then poured in boiling water into the hole he made in the brain, I guess thinking the boiling water would somehow short circut the brain.

He ate parts of his victims so they would be a part of him.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:15 pm
It is indeed. Can't say that I can recall being quite this happy before. It makes being alive feel just wonderful!
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:43 pm
Enjoy it while it lasts, blacksmithn (snickers cynically) - actually, I'm in the same state as you, even after 19 years
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 03:38:09