| |
|
#16
11-13-2004, 07:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 ) - OJ had great lawyers and the prosec. screwed that case up. Havind said that, Prosecuting a case is not the easiest thing in the world.
__________________
 save the cheerleader - save the world 
|
|
#17
11-13-2004, 07:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Well, in that case...
Quote:
__________________
**Christy**
|
|
#18
11-14-2004, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree the decision is a slippery slope with respect to Roe. I have trouble understanding also how Scott could be guilty of first degree murder in the death of Laci but second degree in the death of Connor. Obviously killing Laci would kill Connor so I tend to think that was a compromise within the jury. If they believe Scott premeditated the death of his wife, how can they not believe he understood that would he would be killing Connor also?!? The whole case is a mess IMHO and the strongest ground for appeal in my opinion will be the Judges decision not to allow the defense their boat demonstration but allowing the prosecution to do a demonstration. That was a mistake.. I do wonder if the verdict will stand upon appeal...I tend think he will be granted a new trial....
I don't know if you guys mentioned anywhere the crowds reaction to the Peterson family leaving the courthouse on Friday. It make me sick literally. I feel sorry for Jackie and Lee Peterson, they lost a grandson, daughter in law and a son. The crowd heckling her and jeering and shouting things at her was a sad moment for humanity. I admire the Hacking family so much because they stood up for the right thing and did not side with Mark just because he was their son. Mark confessed however and I believe the Peterson's firmly believe that Scott is innocent. It is a shame that standing up and supporting your son is a reason to be mocked and jeered at in this country. Both families are in a never ending nightmare and this verdict will do nothing to end that.
__________________
~Kelly "She has an exquisite femininity"......Lindsey
|
|
#19
11-14-2004, 09:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 )Also, legally speaking Roe has no application to this case. Roe said the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus was outweighed by the mother's right to privacy only in the first trimester because after then the fetus was viable outside of the womb. After then, the state could place limits and outright prohibit abortion without violating the mother's right to privacy. Food for thought!
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#20
11-14-2004, 10:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
11-14-2004, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
11-14-2004, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 You know who and what we're dealing with here. Check out "Connor's Law." I'm assuming you're unaware of it.
|
|
#23
11-15-2004, 11:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Interstingly and in the abstract, it is a woman's right to choose that is the issue, then the state could call it murder if someone else terminates the pregnancy at any time via murder. The Court never said it was not a life during the first trimester - they actually dodged that exact question to wit: ______________________________________________________________ In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling." With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ _____________________________________________________________ So, the state could legally charge someone with murder of a fetus and not violate Roe. In other words, all the Court protected in Roe was the right to privacy of the mother, it never flat out says in the first trimester the fetus is not a life nor does it give any right to provacy to a murderer as in the Peterson case Note: I am not saying the far religious right will not misuse this. I am just saying that the law does not and cannot violate Roe in reality or in spirit.
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
 |
|
|
$5.40
1970s Pop - Hardcover By Brunning, Bob - GOOD
$3.40
$8.05
Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae
$59.99
Blues: The British Connection by Bob Brunning
$27.59
Linear Mode
