That darn peer pressure!Hurricane2k9 wrote:
lol, the mother is calling her son a hero
http://www.koco.com/r/24703285/detail.html
Well, I'm not sure why you want to discuss hypothetical scenarios with people when it's clear that everyone just wants to discuss the case. Which you decide to ignore key facts.
foreveralone.jpg
foreveralone.jpg
Eh, mothers and their sons...
Not a hero, just botched a criminal action. Not that the pharmacist is any kind of hero. If a cop shot up someone unnecessarily like that, they'd be demonized, so why shouldn't this guy be?
Not a hero, just botched a criminal action. Not that the pharmacist is any kind of hero. If a cop shot up someone unnecessarily like that, they'd be demonized, so why shouldn't this guy be?
I guess her mother just refuses to see how her son brought this upon himself. Love is blind.
An hero.
And this:
lowing, I never said or even implied we couldn't or shouldn't debate the topic. You are arguing against the facts of the case, which none of us have...including you. To debate other hypotheticals (which we did) about whether they would be 1st or 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter) is one thing. To argue whether this specific case--which again we do not have all the evidence for--should be different than the jury found (1st degree murder) is interesting, but irrelevant after a point...which was reached long ago. Many have pointed out how, based solely on the information available, premeditation can be shown. You disagreed. How much more does that particular horse need to be beaten?
Are there other aspects to the situation that you want to discuss? Are there other facets of capital crime you want to discuss? Have you found additional information to further the original discussion? Maybe something regarding legal misconduct?
The point I was making with my original post (that you--as Jaekus so eloquently put it--completely missed) was that all those points you were making wrt this case were likely considered and some (if not all) argued by the man's lawyer. And he lost those arguments, based on the evidence and arguments presented by opposing counsel. Just think about that. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't post. I never implied that.
Feel free to continue arguing points that were already defeated in reality. Whatever floats your boat, brother.
And this:
lowing, I never said or even implied we couldn't or shouldn't debate the topic. You are arguing against the facts of the case, which none of us have...including you. To debate other hypotheticals (which we did) about whether they would be 1st or 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter) is one thing. To argue whether this specific case--which again we do not have all the evidence for--should be different than the jury found (1st degree murder) is interesting, but irrelevant after a point...which was reached long ago. Many have pointed out how, based solely on the information available, premeditation can be shown. You disagreed. How much more does that particular horse need to be beaten?
Are there other aspects to the situation that you want to discuss? Are there other facets of capital crime you want to discuss? Have you found additional information to further the original discussion? Maybe something regarding legal misconduct?
The point I was making with my original post (that you--as Jaekus so eloquently put it--completely missed) was that all those points you were making wrt this case were likely considered and some (if not all) argued by the man's lawyer. And he lost those arguments, based on the evidence and arguments presented by opposing counsel. Just think about that. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't post. I never implied that.
Feel free to continue arguing points that were already defeated in reality. Whatever floats your boat, brother.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The conversation, like all conversations moved to a wider topic FEOS. It turned into what actually constitutes first degree murder. Based on the definitions and the examples used for first degree murder, second degree murder etc. I was arguing that the OP did not fit first degree murder as much as it did the lesser charge. I know the guy was convicted of first degree murder, and just like all things in discussion here, I have my opinion on that fact. Knowing a fact does not stop anyone else from arguing the aspects of it. I see no reason why this issue is any different. The thing is with no other examples of a first degree murder charge for a scenario like the OP, people like Jaekus could not argue the broader question of what first degree murder entails or defend the first degree murder charge in the OP except to say, he was convicted so it was right.FEOS wrote:
An hero.
And this:
lowing, I never said or even implied we couldn't or shouldn't debate the topic. You are arguing against the facts of the case, which none of us have...including you. To debate other hypotheticals (which we did) about whether they would be 1st or 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter) is one thing. To argue whether this specific case--which again we do not have all the evidence for--should be different than the jury found (1st degree murder) is interesting, but irrelevant after a point...which was reached long ago. Many have pointed out how, based solely on the information available, premeditation can be shown. You disagreed. How much more does that particular horse need to be beaten?
Are there other aspects to the situation that you want to discuss? Are there other facets of capital crime you want to discuss? Have you found additional information to further the original discussion? Maybe something regarding legal misconduct?
The point I was making with my original post (that you--as Jaekus so eloquently put it--completely missed) was that all those points you were making wrt this case were likely considered and some (if not all) argued by the man's lawyer. And he lost those arguments, based on the evidence and arguments presented by opposing counsel. Just think about that. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't post. I never implied that.
Feel free to continue arguing points that were already defeated in reality. Whatever floats your boat, brother.
Ya see, I think most in this discussion, love the fact the guy went down so hard, more because of their opinion on gun control and less any other fact presented in the OP.
I didn't ignore anything Jaekus, I challenged it, and I challenged you to defend it, with something other than the case we were discussing.Jaekus wrote:
Well, I'm not sure why you want to discuss hypothetical scenarios with people when it's clear that everyone just wants to discuss the case. Which you decide to ignore key facts.
foreveralone.jpg
"Challenged"
lol
You ignored the fact the guy walked back into the shop, got a second gun, walked over, leant down and shot the kid. Which is the reason why his lawyer could not defend him against the charge of premeditated murder.
I think that's about the fifth time I've mentioned this to you.
You're an odd fellow.
lol
You ignored the fact the guy walked back into the shop, got a second gun, walked over, leant down and shot the kid. Which is the reason why his lawyer could not defend him against the charge of premeditated murder.
I think that's about the fifth time I've mentioned this to you.
You're an odd fellow.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-06-02 04:04:20)
But it's the merits of each individual case that define them, lowing. Yes, precedent is important, but the unique facts of this particular case don't belong anywhere else, do they? Those unique facts led to a conviction of 1st degree murder.lowing wrote:
I didn't ignore anything Jaekus, I challenged it, and I challenged you to defend it, with something other than the case we were discussing.Jaekus wrote:
Well, I'm not sure why you want to discuss hypothetical scenarios with people when it's clear that everyone just wants to discuss the case. Which you decide to ignore key facts.
foreveralone.jpg
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
^ you said what I've been trying to communicate all along.
Precedence takes a back seat to the facts and evidence.
Precedence takes a back seat to the facts and evidence.
No, it's because the guy is patently a sick fucker who should not allowed be amongst regular members of society for a long, long time if at all.lowing wrote:
The conversation, like all conversations moved to a wider topic FEOS. It turned into what actually constitutes first degree murder. Based on the definitions and the examples used for first degree murder, second degree murder etc. I was arguing that the OP did not fit first degree murder as much as it did the lesser charge. I know the guy was convicted of first degree murder, and just like all things in discussion here, I have my opinion on that fact. Knowing a fact does not stop anyone else from arguing the aspects of it. I see no reason why this issue is any different. The thing is with no other examples of a first degree murder charge for a scenario like the OP, people like Jaekus could not argue the broader question of what first degree murder entails or defend the first degree murder charge in the OP except to say, he was convicted so it was right.FEOS wrote:
An hero.
And this:
lowing, I never said or even implied we couldn't or shouldn't debate the topic. You are arguing against the facts of the case, which none of us have...including you. To debate other hypotheticals (which we did) about whether they would be 1st or 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter) is one thing. To argue whether this specific case--which again we do not have all the evidence for--should be different than the jury found (1st degree murder) is interesting, but irrelevant after a point...which was reached long ago. Many have pointed out how, based solely on the information available, premeditation can be shown. You disagreed. How much more does that particular horse need to be beaten?
Are there other aspects to the situation that you want to discuss? Are there other facets of capital crime you want to discuss? Have you found additional information to further the original discussion? Maybe something regarding legal misconduct?
The point I was making with my original post (that you--as Jaekus so eloquently put it--completely missed) was that all those points you were making wrt this case were likely considered and some (if not all) argued by the man's lawyer. And he lost those arguments, based on the evidence and arguments presented by opposing counsel. Just think about that. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't post. I never implied that.
Feel free to continue arguing points that were already defeated in reality. Whatever floats your boat, brother.
Ya see, I think most in this discussion, love the fact the guy went down so hard, more because of their opinion on gun control and less any other fact presented in the OP.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
What fantasy world do you live in? I didn't see anyone advocating stripping you of your gun rights. Even the normally gunphobic came into the thread, kind of nodded their head and said 'well, it was self defense up to a point...' and then wandered off. You've been arguing with yourself for pages now. Give it a rest. You ain't a martyr.lowing wrote:
The conversation, like all conversations moved to a wider topic FEOS. It turned into what actually constitutes first degree murder. Based on the definitions and the examples used for first degree murder, second degree murder etc. I was arguing that the OP did not fit first degree murder as much as it did the lesser charge. I know the guy was convicted of first degree murder, and just like all things in discussion here, I have my opinion on that fact. Knowing a fact does not stop anyone else from arguing the aspects of it. I see no reason why this issue is any different. The thing is with no other examples of a first degree murder charge for a scenario like the OP, people like Jaekus could not argue the broader question of what first degree murder entails or defend the first degree murder charge in the OP except to say, he was convicted so it was right.FEOS wrote:
An hero.
And this:
lowing, I never said or even implied we couldn't or shouldn't debate the topic. You are arguing against the facts of the case, which none of us have...including you. To debate other hypotheticals (which we did) about whether they would be 1st or 2nd degree murder (or manslaughter) is one thing. To argue whether this specific case--which again we do not have all the evidence for--should be different than the jury found (1st degree murder) is interesting, but irrelevant after a point...which was reached long ago. Many have pointed out how, based solely on the information available, premeditation can be shown. You disagreed. How much more does that particular horse need to be beaten?
Are there other aspects to the situation that you want to discuss? Are there other facets of capital crime you want to discuss? Have you found additional information to further the original discussion? Maybe something regarding legal misconduct?
The point I was making with my original post (that you--as Jaekus so eloquently put it--completely missed) was that all those points you were making wrt this case were likely considered and some (if not all) argued by the man's lawyer. And he lost those arguments, based on the evidence and arguments presented by opposing counsel. Just think about that. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't post. I never implied that.
Feel free to continue arguing points that were already defeated in reality. Whatever floats your boat, brother.
Ya see, I think most in this discussion, love the fact the guy went down so hard, more because of their opinion on gun control and less any other fact presented in the OP.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
according to some poster's modus operandi, if you get the last word you win the argument.Jay wrote:
You've been arguing with yourself for pages now.
No Jaekus, I did not ignore those facts. I argued they were part of the emotional freight train that slammed into him the second a gun was pulled on on him, he then snapped. Just like in case where 2nd degree murder was charged.Jaekus wrote:
"Challenged"
lol
You ignored the fact the guy walked back into the shop, got a second gun, walked over, leant down and shot the kid. Which is the reason why his lawyer could not defend him against the charge of premeditated murder.
I think that's about the fifth time I've mentioned this to you.
You're an odd fellow.
You really gotta get over the fact that disagreeing with something or someone does not mean ignoring them.
Yeah, you did ignore the facts. Plenty of times.
I'd wager the kids would never have shot him and were all full of bravado, which is why the other ran, and the pharmacist was aching for the day he could execute someone, which is why he did it.
Hence, murder one fits this case perfectly.
I'd wager the kids would never have shot him and were all full of bravado, which is why the other ran, and the pharmacist was aching for the day he could execute someone, which is why he did it.
Hence, murder one fits this case perfectly.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-06-02 15:58:34)
There ya go, same kinda bullshit argument that is used against lawful gun owners. "We are all just itchin' to kill someone". Nothing could be further from the truth.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, you did ignore the facts. Plenty of times.
I'd wager the kids would never have shot him and were all full of bravado, which is why the other ran, and the pharmacist was aching for the day he could execute someone, which is why he did it.
Hence, murder one fits this case perfectly.
and no, I didn't ignore the fact that the guy went and got a second gun. As I said, he was full of emotion that stemmed from the original attack.
If he beat the brains out of the kid with a baseball bat its still murder. nothing to do with the gun issue.lowing wrote:
There ya go, same kinda bullshit argument that is used against lawful gun owners. "We are all just itchin' to kill someone". Nothing could be further from the truth.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, you did ignore the facts. Plenty of times.
I'd wager the kids would never have shot him and were all full of bravado, which is why the other ran, and the pharmacist was aching for the day he could execute someone, which is why he did it.
Hence, murder one fits this case perfectly.
and no, I didn't ignore the fact that the guy went and got a second gun. As I said, he was full of emotion that stemmed from the original attack.
lol you're pulling at any card you can now. Talk about clutching at straws.
I bet you're going to say the kids were Muslims next and it was ok to shoot them because they were probably terrorists.
I bet you're going to say the kids were Muslims next and it was ok to shoot them because they were probably terrorists.
never argued it wasn't murder. It just has extraordinary considerations tied to it, that in my opinion should have been enough to drop it down from first degree murder. nothing more.Cybargs wrote:
If he beat the brains out of the kid with a baseball bat its still murder. nothing to do with the gun issue.lowing wrote:
There ya go, same kinda bullshit argument that is used against lawful gun owners. "We are all just itchin' to kill someone". Nothing could be further from the truth.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, you did ignore the facts. Plenty of times.
I'd wager the kids would never have shot him and were all full of bravado, which is why the other ran, and the pharmacist was aching for the day he could execute someone, which is why he did it.
Hence, murder one fits this case perfectly.
and no, I didn't ignore the fact that the guy went and got a second gun. As I said, he was full of emotion that stemmed from the original attack.
So you don't think he should get life in prison but you think drug dealers should be executed. Haven't you argued that anyone breaking the law is a shit stain on society? Now you feel sympathy and you sing a diffrent tune. Fuck off.lowing wrote:
never argued it wasn't murder. It just has extraordinary considerations tied to it, that in my opinion should have been enough to drop it down from first degree murder. nothing more.Cybargs wrote:
If he beat the brains out of the kid with a baseball bat its still murder. nothing to do with the gun issue.lowing wrote:
There ya go, same kinda bullshit argument that is used against lawful gun owners. "We are all just itchin' to kill someone". Nothing could be further from the truth.
and no, I didn't ignore the fact that the guy went and got a second gun. As I said, he was full of emotion that stemmed from the original attack.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think the guy was forced into a situation he could not handle. I think if those criminals left him alone he would still be a productive member of society. These are the considerations I feel should have played a bigger part in charging him with first degree murder. In the end however, it was murder yes.Jay wrote:
So you don't think he should get life in prison but you think drug dealers should be executed. Haven't you argued that anyone breaking the law is a shit stain on society? Now you feel sympathy and you sing a diffrent tune. Fuck off.lowing wrote:
never argued it wasn't murder. It just has extraordinary considerations tied to it, that in my opinion should have been enough to drop it down from first degree murder. nothing more.Cybargs wrote:
If he beat the brains out of the kid with a baseball bat its still murder. nothing to do with the gun issue.
Never said drug dealers should be executed Jay, in fact Isadi drugs should be legalized. What I did say however, is I don't give a shit if a drug dealer is executed.
Lets hope you never experience the crushing poverty that pushes people into crime, eh?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no need for hope Jay, I have made sure of it. Also, plenty of poor people that do not stick a fuckin gun into innocent peoples faces, so do me a favor ok? Lets not start victimizing those 2 criminals.Jay wrote:
Lets hope you never experience the crushing poverty that pushes people into crime, eh?
Why not? He chased them outside, shot the one who was unarmed, went back in for another gun, came back out and finished the guy off. If a cop did that, people would be all over the fascist police force.
Why not? really?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Why not? He chased them outside, shot the one who was unarmed, went back in for another gun, came back out and finished the guy off. If a cop did that, people would be all over the fascist police force.