Casey Anthony to be tried for murder in Federal court?

Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Casey Anthony to be tried for murder in Federal court?

https://www.change.org/petitions/the-us-supreme-court-try-casey-anthony-in-federal-court

OVERVIEW

 The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act. People need to start a website for FBI to file murder charges against Casey Anthony on the federal level!!!! THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN ORLANDO HAS JURISDICTION TO REFILE MURDER CHARGES AGAINST CASEY ANTHONY WITHOUT IT BEING DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEASE GET THIS INFO OUT TO EVERYONE.

Credit to Pamela Ervin for the writeup

 

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

https://www.change.org/petitions/the-us-supreme-court-try-casey-anthony-in-federal-court

OVERVIEW

 The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act. People need to start a website for FBI to file murder charges against Casey Anthony on the federal level!!!! THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN ORLANDO HAS JURISDICTION TO REFILE MURDER CHARGES AGAINST CASEY ANTHONY WITHOUT IT BEING DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEASE GET THIS INFO OUT TO EVERYONE.

Credit to Pamela Ervin for the writeup

 

Not sure why you are posting this. Are you posting this because you are for another trial?

BUT,

HELL FUCKING NO!

People who are pissed off about the verdict do not understand the long term damage they can do to society by saying "fuck it, go after them as many times as you want".

What separates us from dictatorships, theocracies, and fascists states is that our government cannot arrest you merely on the nature of accusation. AND once a verdict has been rendered, you cannot be retried for the same crime.

It is sad that this girl died, but the jury did nothing wrong in rendering what they had the constitutional right to do.

If you want to blame anyone for Casey getting off, blame the police for jumping the gun in her arrest. They could have done a wire tap. They could have sent someone under cover to record a confession. They could have found other evidence by not ignoring the first time the bag was found.

And blame the prosecution for not getting strong enough evidence. But retrying Casey because you don't like the verdict says that you do not understand WHY "double jeopardy" was put in place.

You are a fool to make this about one case. This cuts to the core of what kind of society we want to live in. Do we want to live under a government that can do what it wants to us as long as they want to? Or do we want to live in a system where we are willing to let the guilty go free, even when we don't want to, rather than risk putting an innocent person in jail.

DUE process isn't about revenge or emotion. The process was followed in this case. You do not have to like the verdict, but you damned sure should appreciate what the Constitution affords you as well. Advocating a re-trial in this case would say to me, you don't even care about your own rights.

I really hope you are not advocating "fuck double jeopardy". That is a scary proposition and as far as I am concerned, if anyone wants to ignore this, we might as well not have courts and just execute people in public merely on the emotional nature of a charge. THAT is what the Taliban does.

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anyone wanting to re-try her

Anyone wanting to re-try her is wiping their ass with the Constitution and doesn't give a fuck about what they would do to their own rights as a society.

IT SUCKS that Caylee died. It sucks that Casey got off. BUT THAT IS HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS, sometimes the bad guys get away with it. I would rather have that than have a government have unlimited power to do what they want to me.

Stop thinking with your emotions an think about what long term affect this would have if we allow government to do whatever it wants to us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And this petition is a waste

And this petition is a waste of time. Not even our right leaning Supreme Court would strike down the precedence of other double jeopardy cases brought to them in the past.

This is merely an emotional reaction to an emotional case. I do not want to see our Constitution thrown out the window because of emotions.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Amateur Hour for lawyers

Amateur Hour for lawyers now!

 

Tell me what Federal law Casey supposedly violated?

There is no Federal murder law that covers the Anthony case - see - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty

 

Police, racists and others are occasionally charged with violating someone's civil rights after they have been found innocent of murder. This is generally related to violating 18 USC 241, 242, 245, or 247.

See - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

 

Good luck with proving any of that.

 

In your emotional state I see you are grasping at straws to disregard the Constitution. Perhaps you should consider what implications that might have on your rights and that of all US citizens.

Someone with a law degree can explain why this petition drive is nothing but BS based in emotional ignorance of the law.

Why not do something about the thousands of children who are still alive that are in abusive situations with your time.

As someone from Orlando I have made it clear what I have thought of this. This is over and done, get on with your life and work towards something that can make a difference in the world. And please take your news bimbos home with you, go to NY and cover the 8 year old.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Amateur Hour for lawyers now!

 

Tell me what Federal law Casey supposedly violated?

There is no Federal murder law that covers the Anthony case - see - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty

 

Police, racists and others are occasionally charged with violating someone's civil rights after they have been found innocent of murder. This is generally related to violating 18 USC 241, 242, 245, or 247.

See - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

 

Good luck with proving any of that.

 

In your emotional state I see you are grasping at straws to disregard the Constitution. Perhaps you should consider what implications that might have on your rights and that of all US citizens.

Someone with a law degree can explain why this petition drive is nothing but BS based in emotional ignorance of the law.

Why not do something about the thousands of children who are still alive that are in abusive situations with your time.

As someone from Orlando I have made it clear what I have thought of this. This is over and done, get on with your life and work towards something that can make a difference in the world. And please take your news bimbos home with you, go to NY and cover the 8 year old.

 

It scares the shit out of me how many people think the Constitution is only something that confirms their personal desires.

It is bad enough that right wing Christians think the word "Jesus" is in our Constitution where all others are mere guests.

But because civics and the Constitution and precedence are not widely taught, combine it with the irresponsible sensationalist media sluts like Nacy Grace, we have a growing attitude of vigilante stealth jury pools where people get on juries, not to look for facts, but to get revenge on the accused. And this is a trend that both laymen on the right and left fall for. Their own ignorance of why this verdict should be respected will fuck this society up long term, unless people like you and I explain why they need to respect this verdict.

These idiots signing this petition don't even understand that if they got what they want, they would be fucking themselves. Be careful what you wish for morons. When the government accuses you of something, I am damned sure you'd change your tune.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  It scares

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

It scares the shit out of me how many people think the Constitution is only something that confirms their personal desires.

It is bad enough that right wing Christians think the word "Jesus" is in our Constitution where all others are mere guests.

But because civics and the Constitution and precedence are not widely taught, combine it with the irresponsible sensationalist media sluts like Nacy Grace, we have a growing attitude of vigilante stealth jury pools where people get on juries, not to look for facts, but to get revenge on the accused. And this is a trend that both laymen on the right and left fall for. Their own ignorance of why this verdict should be respected will fuck this society up long term, unless people like you and I explain why they need to respect this verdict.

These idiots signing this petition don't even understand that if they got what they want, they would be fucking themselves. Be careful what you wish for morons. When the government accuses you of something, I am damned sure you'd change your tune.

 

America has become dumb and is working on dumber.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are meant to protect everyone. Sometimes this results in things that go against your personal views.

I personally have no use for the Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church pickets of funerals. I think they are evil people. But, they have the right under certain conditions to make their protests. And I have the right to protest them when I drive through Topeka KS. I flipped off their church the other day as I drove through actually. When one of the leaders of that church dies or he does, people are free to  protest at their funerals.

People can be unhappy that Florida screwed up this case, that there was not sufficient proof, and that apparently no one has been "legally found to blame" all they want. But calling for subversion of the Constitution will only result in a country ran and operated at the whim of majority opinions.

Certainly not a good thing. In one way or the other we are all minorities and need the protections of our Constitution.

And you know what I think of the money grubbing media in this case. They need to all go home.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh mah gawd, a kid died and

Oh mah gawd, a kid died and no one has been found guilty yet!

Screw the Bill of Rights! Execute the mom because I don't like her!

Make stupid laws and go on protests based on an emotional impulse!!!!11oneone

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now, if that

Brian37 wrote:

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain. 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

It scares the shit out of me how many people think the Constitution is only something that confirms their personal desires.

It is bad enough that right wing Christians think the word "Jesus" is in our Constitution where all others are mere guests.

But because civics and the Constitution and precedence are not widely taught, combine it with the irresponsible sensationalist media sluts like Nacy Grace, we have a growing attitude of vigilante stealth jury pools where people get on juries, not to look for facts, but to get revenge on the accused. And this is a trend that both laymen on the right and left fall for. Their own ignorance of why this verdict should be respected will fuck this society up long term, unless people like you and I explain why they need to respect this verdict.

These idiots signing this petition don't even understand that if they got what they want, they would be fucking themselves. Be careful what you wish for morons. When the government accuses you of something, I am damned sure you'd change your tune.

 

America has become dumb and is working on dumber.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are meant to protect everyone. Sometimes this results in things that go against your personal views.

I personally have no use for the Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church pickets of funerals. I think they are evil people. But, they have the right under certain conditions to make their protests. And I have the right to protest them when I drive through Topeka KS. I flipped off their church the other day as I drove through actually. When one of the leaders of that church dies or he does, people are free to  protest at their funerals.

People can be unhappy that Florida screwed up this case, that there was not sufficient proof, and that apparently no one has been "legally found to blame" all they want. But calling for subversion of the Constitution will only result in a country ran and operated at the whim of majority opinions.

Certainly not a good thing. In one way or the other we are all minorities and need the protections of our Constitution.

And you know what I think of the money grubbing media in this case. They need to all go home.

 

 

I once went to traffic court for a ticket. If most locations are the same, some courts are used both for traffic tickets and criminal charges. And it is pretty standard that if given a summons for a traffic ticket, you show up at 9am even if your case isn't called until last.

In my instance for that day, they did the criminal proceedings first. One case was a guy being accused of robbing a cab driver. There was only one witness, the cab driver. BUT, the accused entire family said he was at home watching tv with them. So, the judge did the right thing and threw out the case. I could tell that the judge was reading his prior history while listening to the testimony of the accused's  family. The judge was giving the family the look, "really"?

WHY? The entire family could have been lying. But since all this amounted to as far was "he said she said" he did the right thing. But what if, even if he had priors, what if that family was telling the truth?

The point is we should not want as a society, to throw out the system simply because we don't always like the result. It has to be this way, otherwise why even have courts or a Constitution.

I would rather live here, where I have a shot of defending myself from an over zealous government, than to live under one that can do whatever it wants to me.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Brian37

butterbattle wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain. 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss. 

 

I must have missed that in the OP. Good. That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That website

Brian37 wrote:
That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

Yeah, they scare me too. I'm not sure I could guarantee that this won't happen though.

Many states are already considering some version of the retarded Caylee's Law.

Edit: But, there is something else I can pretty much guarantee. If Caylee's Laws are passed, the same kind of shit that's happening with these laws will happen with Caylee's Laws.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4405
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Brian37

butterbattle wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

Yeah, they freak me out too. I'm not sure I could guarantee that this won't happen though. Many states are already considering some version of the retarded, "Caylee's Law."   

 

 

Yeah, the reaction from many to this case has been scary. I don't think people have any comprehension of legal theory and are willing to let their emotions rule. There is a reason why we have a trial by jury system, there is a reason why the system was built with a bias for the defendant. If people think there is no chance of personally being arrested for a crime they didn't commit they are fooling themselves. Cops and prosecutors have a lot of incentive to put someone in jail regardless of their guilt.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian37 wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain.

 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss.

 

I must have missed that in the OP. Good. That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

 

You would not be alone on that Brian. I see nothing in the OP that indicates an intent to start a discussion.

 

That much being said, the source is an outfit called change.org which is some liberal PAC. I know because one of my conservative buddies got a three second chuckle while subscribing me to their email listserv.

 

Generally, about once every couple of weeks, the send me some retarded petition to sign. Usually, whatever the issue is, it is of so little interest that it never made the national press and I have to google to find out what they are on about. Evidently, not this time though.

 

Now about a month ago, they sent me one that actually was in my local news and that one I know about. Check this bit of political retardation:

 

There is a woman who registered her kid at one of the best schools in the county. The problem is that she does not live in that city. Rather, she lives in a homeless shelter four cities away. Well, I am happy that she want her kid to go to a great school but she would need to live in town to do that legally. Now she is being charged with theft of services.

 

This is only important to change.org because of the fact that we know the homeless shelter address due to that being listed on her food stamps account.

 

So how did she manage to get the kid in that particular school? She falsified her address to make it look like she was living with a friend in public housing in the city where the school is. BTW, it is illegal to sublet public housing.

 

It gets worse. Even at that address, the kid was traveling out of district to go to that school. In fact, the school he could have gone to from that address is one street away through a strip of woods. If the kid really was living there, he had a school in walking distance. Of course, that was the school districted for kids who live in public housing and therefore not a very good school. The dumb twat waffle knew that and came up with this plan anyway.

 

Basically, change.org are a bunch of liberal dumbfucks who think that a homeless woman on food stamps should have a right to access any public school of her choice even if she has to falsify records to do so.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian37 wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain.

 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss.

 

I must have missed that in the OP. Good. That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

 

You would not be alone on that Brian. I see nothing in the OP that indicates an intent to start a discussion.

 

That much being said, the source is an outfit called change.org which is some liberal PAC. I know because one of my conservative buddies got a three second chuckle while subscribing me to their email listserv.

 

Generally, about once every couple of weeks, the send me some retarded petition to sign. Usually, whatever the issue is, it is of so little interest that it never made the national press and I have to google to find out what they are on about. Evidently, not this time though.

 

Now about a month ago, they sent me one that actually was in my local news and that one I know about. Check this bit of political retardation:

 

There is a woman who registered her kid at one of the best schools in the county. The problem is that she does not live in that city. Rather, she lives in a homeless shelter four cities away. Well, I am happy that she want her kid to go to a great school but she would need to live in town to do that legally. Now she is being charged with theft of services.

 

This is only important to change.org because of the fact that we know the homeless shelter address due to that being listed on her food stamps account.

 

So how did she manage to get the kid in that particular school? She falsified her address to make it look like she was living with a friend in public housing in the city where the school is. BTW, it is illegal to sublet public housing.

 

It gets worse. Even at that address, the kid was traveling out of district to go to that school. In fact, the school he could have gone to from that address is one street away through a strip of woods. If the kid really was living there, he had a school in walking distance. Of course, that was the school districted for kids who live in public housing and therefore not a very good school. The dumb twat waffle knew that and came up with this plan anyway.

 

Basically, change.org are a bunch of liberal dumbfucks who think that a homeless woman on food stamps should have a right to access any public school of her choice even if she has to falsify records to do so.

 

I don't agree with breaking the law but I am not going to lose my compassion in the process. This is the same stupid dichotomy people use to justify deporting illegals.

Dont hand me any guff saying "I wouldn't steal bread to feed my child".

We know quite well, even outside of the issue of crime, that humans are capable and will defend their children. Ask any teacher if they have ever run into a child who does something wrong, and then get blasted by the parent for their child being punished.

Rather than compound the problem by making the punishment worse than the crime, create a better environment where the person lives so they wont feel the need to do what they did.

And the same could be said for illegals. Prior to my neighbors on both sides who are hispanic, on one side once lived a WHITE meth dealer who got kicked out by his landlord when caught, and then came back and destroyed the house out of revenge for being kicked out. I heard that story when the owner was there fixing his house.

NOW, while I don't know the status of my neighbors, I can say that they have been quiet and have not caused a lick of trouble. I think it would be, or should be a no brainer as to who you would want living next to you.

AND what about children who without choice are brought here and are raised knowing nothing but this country? You'd suggest, even though being here is not their fault, that they get shipped back to a country they don't know and would have a harder time surviving in?

MY POINT IS none of what this woman did in shipping her kid to a school illegally makes her a bad person, nor is poverty a crime. So while she should be convicted of something, I think it should be more along the lines of littering rather than treating a poor person like a murderer. PROPORTION

 

So don't equate what this woman did to what this petition site is doing. I have lots of problems with "liberals" depending on the specific issues, like guns, and political correctness. Over punishing someone for wanting to educate their kid is not at the top of my priorities.

Or is it we should have a cast system and treat the poor like they do in India?

I think what the bank ceo's and car companies and oil companies do to the public is far worse a crime than a mother trying to send her kid to a decent school.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Oh mah

butterbattle wrote:

Oh mah gawd, a kid died and no one has been found guilty yet!

Screw the Bill of Rights! Execute the mom because I don't like her!

Make stupid laws and go on protests based on an emotional impulse!!!!11oneone

 

 

BUT NANCY GRACE SAID SHE WAS GUILTY!!

 

!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Oh mah gawd, a kid died and no one has been found guilty yet!

Screw the Bill of Rights! Execute the mom because I don't like her!

Make stupid laws and go on protests based on an emotional impulse!!!!11oneone

 

 

BUT NANCY GRACE SAID SHE WAS GUILTY!!

 

!

Nancy Grace didn't say she was guilty she just "winked" at the viewer with a scolding look as if to say "fuck the trial, we all know Tot Mom did it".

Or  she smiles at her views as if to say, "promise me if you get on this jury that you will fry the bitch.....I meant Tot Mom"(smile)

And the idiots angry over this case and watch this irresponsible bitch don't realize that her anger is merely a marketing tool and I don't think she gives one shit about due process.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian37 wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain.

 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss.

 

I must have missed that in the OP. Good. That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

 

You would not be alone on that Brian. I see nothing in the OP that indicates an intent to start a discussion.

 

That much being said, the source is an outfit called change.org which is some liberal PAC. I know because one of my conservative buddies got a three second chuckle while subscribing me to their email listserv.

 

Generally, about once every couple of weeks, the send me some retarded petition to sign. Usually, whatever the issue is, it is of so little interest that it never made the national press and I have to google to find out what they are on about. Evidently, not this time though.

 

Now about a month ago, they sent me one that actually was in my local news and that one I know about. Check this bit of political retardation:

 

There is a woman who registered her kid at one of the best schools in the county. The problem is that she does not live in that city. Rather, she lives in a homeless shelter four cities away. Well, I am happy that she want her kid to go to a great school but she would need to live in town to do that legally. Now she is being charged with theft of services.

 

This is only important to change.org because of the fact that we know the homeless shelter address due to that being listed on her food stamps account.

 

So how did she manage to get the kid in that particular school? She falsified her address to make it look like she was living with a friend in public housing in the city where the school is. BTW, it is illegal to sublet public housing.

 

It gets worse. Even at that address, the kid was traveling out of district to go to that school. In fact, the school he could have gone to from that address is one street away through a strip of woods. If the kid really was living there, he had a school in walking distance. Of course, that was the school districted for kids who live in public housing and therefore not a very good school. The dumb twat waffle knew that and came up with this plan anyway.

 

Basically, change.org are a bunch of liberal dumbfucks who think that a homeless woman on food stamps should have a right to access any public school of her choice even if she has to falsify records to do so.

 

Agreed with you about change.org - there was one time where I signed a petition for a cause that I thought was legit, and then I started getting spam emails from a bunch of stupid ones like this:

 

---

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-fbi-rape-is-rape?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&alert_id=QfLQpoLrUg_VUGwnoMbhR

---

So in other words, a woman was drinking with a man and had consensual sex (she wasn't raped), now she wants to have him charged with "rape" because she was intoxicated while they had sex - and change.org supports this.

 

So needless to say I unsubscribed from them - actually I never "subscribed" to them to begin with for that matter - I just signed one petition about a month ago, and have been getting spam from them. lol

 

 

 

 

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:butterbattle

Brian37 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Now, if that is not what you are saying here, please explain. 

He's just posting the article for us to discuss. 

 

I must have missed that in the OP. Good. That website scares me and the petitioners scare me. But lucky for us, so far, our courts wouldn't bow to crap like this.

 

As far as that goes - I'm all for her being charged with some crime if they can pin her on it. There may or may not be enough evidence to convict her of murder (I said before that while personally think she's guilty of murder, I understand that the evidence is more important), but she obviously was involved in it to some degree, so if they can convict her of some lesser charge (any charge) which has a lesser burden of legal proof than murder, than I say good.

Plus, it's not unconstitutional to try a person federally even if they were acquitted on the state level. I thought the whole argument about her "not guilty" verdict centered around the legality of convicting her, not the "morality". So if we can find a legal loophole to constitutionally get a crime pinned on her, then that solves the legal controversy. But if the problem with convicting her is actually a moral controversy, I'd like to hear that in more detail.

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh.......Actually, you're

Oh.......

Actually, you're right, I don't know if retrying her in that way would technically be legal or not. I think I reacted a little bit to the OP.

The jury already pinned some smaller crimes on her, like obstructing the investigation, something like that, etc.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

 

There are no Federal laws that apply. See post #4.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Brian, I think that you

Well Brian, I think that you completely missed what I was saying.  Sure what that welfare mother did should not be all that big of a case.   Hand her a fine for the cost of one year of school.  Let her pay it in installments.  Then while that is going on, she should move to the homeless shelter in the town that she wants the kid to attend school in.  Problem solved.

I used that as an example because change.org keeps sending me these drivel petitions.  This time, I already knew of the case but usually not.  In this case, they expect me to sign a document that basically says that poor people should be allowed to do as they please.  In the Anthony case, they want to try the mother over and over until someone gets it right (as seen in their eyes).

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

 

There are no Federal laws that apply. See post #4.

 

 

You guys are arguing legality as per constitution and I am arguing climate and long term society.

You might argue that the founders did not make it clear enough but their attitude in the way the Constitution was clear enough about what kind of long term society they wanted to see set up.

If they deliberately made it harder for government take your freedom away, and demanded oversight and record of accusation and trial, then "double jeopardy"  reflects that attitude of the check on government and the oversight on government they intended.

Just because loopholes are used and or a given climate sets people up in office and courts to interpret differently, doesn't change the intent of the motif the founders intended.

They did not want government to have absolute power.

So not retrying her  is consistent with saying to the government "You had your shot and you blew it".

You are not going to get any credible judge to allow the feds to try her and to do so, in my eyes would be wiping your ass with the Constitution and the precedence of prior "double jeopardy" cases. ESPECIALLY MURDER cases.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

 

There are no Federal laws that apply. See post #4.

 

 

You guys are arguing legality as per constitution and I am arguing climate and long term society.

You might argue that the founders did not make it clear enough but their attitude in the way the Constitution was clear enough about what kind of long term society they wanted to see set up.

If they deliberately made it harder for government take your freedom away, and demanded oversight and record of accusation and trial, then "double jeopardy"  reflects that attitude of the check on government and the oversight on government they intended.

Just because loopholes are used and or a given climate sets people up in office and courts to interpret differently, doesn't change the intent of the motif the founders intended.

They did not want government to have absolute power.

So not retrying her  is consistent with saying to the government "You had your shot and you blew it".

You are not going to get any credible judge to allow the feds to try her and to do so, in my eyes would be wiping your ass with the Constitution and the precedence of prior "double jeopardy" cases. ESPECIALLY MURDER cases.

 

 

Right, but the only reason she hasn't been charged with a crime is due to pure legalism, not the "spirit of the law". So I see nothing wrong with her being re-tried as long as legally it's compliant. If the spirit of the law had been upheld, then she'd be in prison right now.

What can I say, it's karma.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Computer forensics were tainted by prosecutors

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Right, but the only reason she hasn't been charged with a crime is due to pure legalism, not the "spirit of the law". So I see nothing wrong with her being re-tried as long as legally it's compliant. If the spirit of the law had been upheld, then she'd be in prison right now.

What can I say, it's karma.

One thing you ignore is the level that our Orange county state attorneys office will go to to get convictions. In this case they knew that the chloroform search forensics were inaccurate. It turns out the one of the programs used to prove she searched 80 plus times had errors. This was known prior to the trial as well.

see - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-23/news/os-mike-thomas-lamar-casey-072411-20110720_1_casey-anthony-trial-chloroform-new-evidence

or see - http://www.christianpost.com/news/cindy-anthony-did-not-lie-about-chloroform-searches-52584/

It turns out there was only 1 search for a few seconds.

Definitely not someone searching for a murder weapon.

Orange county prosecutors are well known for charging someone with everything from littering to 1st degree murder in order to get any conviction. Anything to stay in the media spotlight. Apparently they think that will keep them in office or show us citizens what a great job they do. Take for example the case of Astronaut Lisa Nowak. In that case they charged her with BS, related to the use of a lethal weapon among other charges. Not to mention the police violated her rights. . Pepper spray is now a lethal weapon. Yeah right. They charged her with attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, battery and attempted burglary of a car with battery.

Perhaps you are an expert on the antics of your own city, county, state officials but you don't seem to grasp the situation in Orlando. You should research what Lawson Lamar's office has done over the years.

And it's not just his office, other prosecutors in the area have shown their desire for media spotlight as well.

Good luck with finding anything to charge Casey with considering how tainted this investigation was handled.

And by the way, one of my friends is one of the attorney's  suing Casey Anthony for libel so don't think that I'm just taking her side here.

The law is what it is and our Orange county prosecutors sometimes get extreme in their desire to convict, ignoring important evidence that would weaken their cases and as in this case they failed to inform the defense of the tainted forensics as well in the computer searches. If she had been convicted, the case would have been tossed for the prosecutors antics on appeal due to their ignoring the law.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist


Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

 

That would be the 5th amendment.

 

US constitution wrote:
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

 

So this is just not going to happen on the federal level.  Any prosecutor who would even consider this case would have no choice but to resign in shame after filing the papers.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

And if I'm wrong on the Constitution then correct me - but what part of the constitution is violated by trying a person federally even if they were found not guilty on the state level? She wouldn't be the first person to have this happen to her.

 

There are no Federal laws that apply. See post #4.

 

 

You guys are arguing legality as per constitution and I am arguing climate and long term society.

You might argue that the founders did not make it clear enough but their attitude in the way the Constitution was clear enough about what kind of long term society they wanted to see set up.

If they deliberately made it harder for government take your freedom away, and demanded oversight and record of accusation and trial, then "double jeopardy"  reflects that attitude of the check on government and the oversight on government they intended.

Just because loopholes are used and or a given climate sets people up in office and courts to interpret differently, doesn't change the intent of the motif the founders intended.

They did not want government to have absolute power.

So not retrying her  is consistent with saying to the government "You had your shot and you blew it".

You are not going to get any credible judge to allow the feds to try her and to do so, in my eyes would be wiping your ass with the Constitution and the precedence of prior "double jeopardy" cases. ESPECIALLY MURDER cases.

 

 

Right, but the only reason she hasn't been charged with a crime is due to pure legalism, not the "spirit of the law". So I see nothing wrong with her being re-tried as long as legally it's compliant. If the spirit of the law had been upheld, then she'd be in prison right now.

What can I say, it's karma.

I am glad you had no hand in writing our Constitution.

All the "spirit of the law" means to you is when the the outcome of the verdict matches your emotions.

Otherwise you wouldn't be looking for excuses to piss on the concept of "double jeopardy".

Life sucks sometimes and sometimes the bad guy gets away with it. I would rather have it that way, than to give my government unlimited do overs just because some people don't like the outcome.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Right, but the only reason she hasn't been charged with a crime is due to pure legalism, not the "spirit of the law". So I see nothing wrong with her being re-tried as long as legally it's compliant. If the spirit of the law had been upheld, then she'd be in prison right now.

What can I say, it's karma.

One thing you ignore is the level that our Orange county state attorneys office will go to to get convictions. In this case they knew that the chloroform search forensics were inaccurate. It turns out the one of the programs used to prove she searched 80 plus times had errors. This was known prior to the trial as well.

see - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-23/news/os-mike-thomas-lamar-casey-072411-20110720_1_casey-anthony-trial-chloroform-new-evidence

or see - http://www.christianpost.com/news/cindy-anthony-did-not-lie-about-chloroform-searches-52584/

It turns out there was only 1 search for a few seconds.

Definitely not someone searching for a murder weapon.

Orange county prosecutors are well known for charging someone with everything from littering to 1st degree murder in order to get any conviction. Anything to stay in the media spotlight. Apparently they think that will keep them in office or show us citizens what a great job they do. Take for example the case of Astronaut Lisa Nowak. In that case they charged her with BS, related to the use of a lethal weapon among other charges. Not to mention the police violated her rights. . Pepper spray is now a lethal weapon. Yeah right. They charged her with attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, battery and attempted burglary of a car with battery.

Perhaps you are an expert on the antics of your own city, county, state officials but you don't seem to grasp the situation in Orlando. You should research what Lawson Lamar's office has done over the years.

And it's not just his office, other prosecutors in the area have shown their desire for media spotlight as well.

Good luck with finding anything to charge Casey with considering how tainted this investigation was handled.

And by the way, one of my friends is one of the attorney's  suing Casey Anthony for libel so don't think that I'm just taking her side here.

The law is what it is and our Orange county prosecutors sometimes get extreme in their desire to convict, ignoring important evidence that would weaken their cases and as in this case they failed to inform the defense of the tainted forensics as well in the computer searches. If she had been convicted, the case would have been tossed for the prosecutors antics on appeal due to their ignoring the law.

 

This is the point most people miss. Even without blatant corruption, you can have a climate in a society that can lead them to bias, even if they think that they are doing the right thing. It can lead them to cut corners, or focus on one person.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Another thought that comes

Another thought that comes to mind here is that the police took in all the evidence they could, the prosecutor made the best case that he could based on the evidence and the case was total crap from beginning to end.

 

The most that they ever had was the smell inside the trunk which was described by someone as “like a dead body”. OK and exactly how many month old dead bodies has that person been around to know what that should smell like? Then when they popped the trunk it turned out to have rotting garbage in it.

 

Personally, that does not sound quite right. Who carries a trunk full of rotting garbage around? Possibly someone who had a dead body in there earlier? OK, now prove that that was the case.

 

In fact, they did try. They got some of the top scientists in the nation to come down from Oak Ridge to sample the air. The air samples were tested in the Neutron Spallation Source, a machine that cost half a billion tax payer dollars to build and all that they managed to prove was that there was evidence of decay. Right!

 

So even if another trial was legal, no properly constituted court would be able to look at the evidence and come up with a different verdict. There is just no case that could be considered even if the constitution did allow for that to happen.

 

So given that, what is the appeal to a new trial apart from “we will get her one way or another” which could not happen regardless?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=