Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is seriously irritating when you take something a person says, then you add your own ####### to it and then question a person about the ####### you added. I said "MEDIA IN THE COURT ROOM". Once it's in court, the JURY DOESN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRIAL FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Well there's a fairly wide difference between putting a camera (sans commentary) into a courtroom vs. running nonstop stories about the case on every news network, interviewing people connected with the victim or accused and publicly airing unsubstantiated opinions as to their character and their guilt - worse still making TV movies based on the case before the trial has been concluded.

The latter is clearly prejudicial - however much you try to insulate the jury.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i said no such thing. you're reading what you want and making what you want out of this.

I responded to:

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

Reading more into it than was there? Maybe - but your implication was fairly clear...

Knife=tool

Car=tool

gun=tool

you're the one who drew the parallel between them, not me. i didn't use the words nor quotation marks, like you did

time for quoting class for you

Charles stop making more of things than there are. Just because you don't explicitly say it, the reasonable interpretation of your words was fairly clear. If I completely misinterpreted your meaning - then you're free to clarify, no?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

It is seriously irritating when you take something a person says, then you add your own ####### to it and then question a person about the ####### you added. I said "MEDIA IN THE COURT ROOM". Once it's in court, the JURY DOESN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRIAL FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Well there's a fairly wide difference between putting a camera (sans commentary) into a courtroom vs. running nonstop stories about the case on every news network, interviewing people connected with the victim or accused and publicly airing unsubstantiated opinions as to their character and their guilt - worse still making TV movies based on the case before the trial has been concluded.

The latter is clearly prejudicial - however much you try to insulate the jury.

which, if the jury is properly isolated, has no bearing on the verdict.

Charles stop making more of things than there are. Just because you don't explicitly say it, the reasonable interpretation of your words was fairly clear. If I completely misinterpreted your meaning - then you're free to clarify, no?

just what do you think i've been doing?

again, you make what you want out of it to fit your intentions.

eta: perhaps you should follow your own advice about "...stop making more of things than there are."

Edited April 5, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And BTW – how is it you can claim that gun control laws only affect “law abiding people”? Obviously there will always be criminals (who by definition, will always break the law), and (obviously) there will always be victims. What’s the point you’re trying to make here? That just because someone may try to mug you in a subway that you shouldn’t be constrained by any laws whatsoever?

for someone who talks out of one side of their mouth about loss of rights, i find this statement to be most amusing as you seem to be advocating removing that right from the people.

it should appear painfully obvious to anyone that obviously the law abiding people will follow and obey the law, whereas those who don't follow it are criminals. ergo, "...gun control laws only affect “law abiding people”

are you just chasing your tail for entertainment value?

Removing rights? Nope - I simply disagree that those "rights" are necessary to begin with (having lived for 29 years in various countries and never once being the victim of a violent crime). That's all.

Do you think we can actually have a reasonable discussion this time without turning it into a personal cr*pfest? I'm getting the hint fairly strongly that that is what you want. Disagree for disagreements sake and all that. Of course I could be wrong - but seriously... for once it would be nice not to go down the 'low' road.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

which, if the jury is properly isolated, has no bearing on the verdict.

Sure, and if it hadn't happened before I might agree with you.

Hows about we turn the question around?

Do you think making a TV movie for mass distribution in which a specific interpretation of the case (clearly illustrating the defendants guilt) before the trial has been concluded prejudices public opinion?

That is a specific question with a yes/no answer.

[derekkj 0]

The obvious answer to that is that none of those things (knife, car etc) are designed solely with that purpose in mind.

You guys really like your melodrama don’t you? I was responding to Charles’ throwaway comment that “its just a tool”. Sure I agree with that – but it’s a tool with a singular purpose in mind, no? Of course I guess I could be wrong there - recalling that Simpsons episode where Homer uses his pistol to open beer bottles and change the channel on the, but that’s just being facetious ;-)

OK, I'll take the bait here and disagree with your "singular purpose" for firearms, which I am assuming you mean is just to kill people.

The one firearm that I own, a Colt .22 caliber Woodsman, is solely for target shooting. I don't carry it concealed (the special grips on it that stabilize my hand better than regular grips would make it far too bulky for that) and I don't keep it at home for protection (even if I did, if some crazed person high on drugs broke into my house, a .22 probably wouldn't even slow them down.) If you are interested, I can provide you with other examples of guns, (rifles, handguns and shotguns) that were made specifically for the shooting sports, such as trap and skeet, not to inflict harm on a human body. The shooting sports, by the way, are one of the oldest Olympic sports, and take a great deal of discipline, concentration and coordination to master.

Besides the shooting sports, there are a whole lot of gun collectors out there who wouldn't even dream of shooting the high dollar guns that they have because it would diminish their value. They collect them for the history they represent, the craftsmanship that went into making them, or other sentimental or nostalgic reasons. Sorta like how expensive cars can turn into "garage art."

And I am sure there are more than a few people in the world who use firearms to provide food for their family, but don't hunt so I'll let someone else take that on. But sufficed to say, I am willing to bet that the majority of guns out there (and gun owners) have never injured or killed a human.

By the way, the NRA Simpsons is one of my favorite episodes!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

just what do you think i've been doing?

again, you make what you want out of it to fit your intentions.

eta: perhaps you should follow your own advice about "...stop making more of things than there are."

Then please clarify your meaning for my benefit then. If you mean't something else then I'm all ears

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The obvious answer to that is that none of those things (knife, car etc) are designed solely with that purpose in mind.

You guys really like your melodrama don’t you? I was responding to Charles’ throwaway comment that “its just a tool”. Sure I agree with that – but it’s a tool with a singular purpose in mind, no? Of course I guess I could be wrong there - recalling that Simpsons episode where Homer uses his pistol to open beer bottles and change the channel on the, but that’s just being facetious ;-)

OK, I'll take the bait here and disagree with your "singular purpose" for firearms, which I am assuming you mean is just to kill people.

The one firearm that I own, a Colt .22 caliber Woodsman, is solely for target shooting. I don't carry it concealed (the special grips on it that stabilize my hand better than regular grips would make it far too bulky for that) and I don't keep it at home for protection (even if I did, if some crazed person high on drugs broke into my house, a .22 probably wouldn't even slow them down.) If you are interested, I can provide you with other examples of guns, (rifles, handguns and shotguns) that were made specifically for the shooting sports, such as trap and skeet, not to inflict harm on a human body. The shooting sports, by the way, are one of the oldest Olympic sports, and take a great deal of discipline, concentration and coordination to master.

Besides the shooting sports, there are a whole lot of gun collectors out there who wouldn't even dream of shooting the high dollar guns that they have because it would diminish their value. They collect them for the history they represent, the craftsmanship that went into making them, or other sentimental or nostalgic reasons. Sorta like how expensive cars can turn into "garage art."

And I am sure there are more than a few people in the world who use firearms to provide food for their family, but don't hunt so I'll let someone else take that on. But sufficed to say, I am willing to bet that the majority of guns out there (and gun owners) have never injured or killed a human.

That's very true - and I certainly agree with your last point.

I was contextualising from the argument that a major (if not the primary) reason for owning a gun is for personal/home protection - when you take that into account, the range of applications diminishes considerably.

[derekkj 0]

That's very true - and I certainly agree with your last point.

I was contextualising from the argument that a major (if not the primary) reason for owning a gun is for personal/home protection - when you take that into account, the range of applications diminishes considerably.

Hmmm, I don't know that I agree that the majority of gun owners have them for personal/home protection. Most of the people I know, like myself, are more into the sports aspect of shooting. And while I do know a fair number that have guns for both reasons, I don't know too many people who have a gun JUST for protection. Guess it's like the chicken and the egg - did you get into the shooting sports after buying a gun for defensive reasons or vice versa? Don't have an answer to that, obviously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's very true - and I certainly agree with your last point.

I was contextualising from the argument that a major (if not the primary) reason for owning a gun is for personal/home protection - when you take that into account, the range of applications diminishes considerably.

Hmmm, I don't know that I agree that the majority of gun owners have them for personal/home protection. Most of the people I know, like myself, are more into the sports aspect of shooting. And while I do know a fair number that have guns for both reasons, I don't know too many people who have a gun JUST for protection. Guess it's like the chicken and the egg - did you get into the shooting sports after buying a gun for defensive reasons or vice versa? Don't have an answer to that, obviously.

That's fair. The protection argument is one brought up by others - I'm just not convinced that "owning for protection" is really necessary. Obviously that depends where you live - but even so. Would it make me feel secure in a bad neighbourhood? I'm not so sure...

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Removing rights? Nope - I simply disagree that those "rights" are necessary to begin with (having lived for 29 years in various countries and never once being the victim of a violent crime). That's all.

so you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. what part of infringed"" are we having difficulty grasping?

Do you think we can actually have a reasonable discussion this time without turning it into a personal cr*pfest? I'm getting the hint fairly strongly that that is what you want. Disagree for disagreements sake and all that. Of course I could be wrong - but seriously... for once it would be nice not to go down the 'low' road.

given your desire to attribute statements to me with quotation marks that i didn't make, it seems a bit late for that statement, eh?

That is a specific question with a yes/no answer.

obviously it does. hence the instructions to the jury to make their judgement based on what is presented in the courtroom.

I was contextualising from the argument that a major (if not the primary) reason for owning a gun is for personal/home protection - when you take that into account, the range of applications diminishes considerably.

and should someone decide to do so, what's the problem with it? your personal dislike for guns?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Removing rights? Nope - I simply disagree that those "rights" are necessary to begin with (having lived for 29 years in various countries and never once being the victim of a violent crime). That's all.

I want to live in a 'good' neighborhood and still have the right to own a gun. The right to bear arms was not created to fight crime (it's a nice side benefit though).

So you have never been the victim of a violent crime (that's good)? Then I know for a fact that a law abiding gun owner has never infringed on your pursuit of happiness.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Removing rights? Nope - I simply disagree that those "rights" are necessary to begin with (having lived for 29 years in various countries and never once being the victim of a violent crime). That's all.

I want to live in a 'good' neighborhood and still have the right to own a gun. The right to bear arms was not created to fight crime (it's a nice side benefit though).

Also true, but I disagree with the concept of "armed militia" as it pertains to 21st century America. It seems the concept applied quite well to the 17th century but is somewhat redundant nowadays.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. what part of infringed"" are we having difficulty grasping?

Its simple I think the second amendment is outdated, redundant and isn't appropriate to the 21st century. You are (as always) free to disagree.

given your desire to attribute statements to me with quotation marks that i didn't make, it seems a bit late for that statement, eh?

Charles - I paraphrased your prior statement with "quotation marks" and I also quoted the exact comment I was responding to. What's the point you are making here? If I made an unreasonable interpretation of your comments - feel free to clarify them for the record. You cannot expect to hold a monopoly on how people interpret your words - so again please clarify them if its that important to you. Otherwise feel free to argue for arguments sake - I'm just not sure what it is you want to achieve. The school bully act didn't impress me 15-20 years ago, and certainly doesn't today.

obviously it does. hence the instructions to the jury to make their judgement based on what is presented in the courtroom.

And the safeguard to that is to prevent (as far as possible), the possibility of the jury being prejudiced by any outside opinion propagated by the mass media. The fewer people outside the court room who are discussing the case in any detail, the lesser the chance that this will happen. Seems commonsense to me...

and should someone decide to do so, what's the problem with it? your personal dislike for guns?

Outside of the original context that I wrote that (in response to derekkj's post) I think that stands as an example of "unreasonable interpretation". But anyway...

My personal opinion is that guns are not needed for personal/home protection (which is why I will never own one), but I think (at least part of the reason people buy them for that reason) is the result of want them because the fear of violent crime (propagated by the media) that outweighs the likelihood of actually being a victim.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

so you are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment. what part of infringed"" are we having difficulty grasping?

Its simple I think the second amendment is outdated, redundant and isn't appropriate to the 21st century. You are (as always) free to disagree.

i am most thankful that you can't vote. all of your pissing and moaning about the rights being lost due to this act or that act, and apparently this right means nothing to you, the one right that the founding fathers intentionally put there to insure the people have the ability to revolt against the government should the government not remain "for the people". so you're all ready to give that one away, regardless of what anyone else thinks. you do have the ability to vote with your feet and return to that ever so great britain

on this topic, you can bet i'm going to disagree with a liberal view

given your desire to attribute statements to me with quotation marks that i didn't make, it seems a bit late for that statement, eh?

Charles - I paraphrased your prior statement with "quotation marks" and I also quoted the exact comment I was responding to. What's the point you are making here? If I made an unreasonable interpretation of your comments - feel free to clarify them for the record. You cannot expect to hold a monopoly on how people interpret your words - so again please clarify them if its that important to you. Otherwise feel free to argue for arguments sake - I'm just not sure what it is you want to achieve. The school bully act didn't impress me 15-20 years ago, and certainly doesn't today.

par·a·phrase (pr-frz) KEY

NOUN:

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

in other words, it's a chance for you to put your own interpretation on things, a chance for you to spin things. that's the point, got it? i've clarified it numerous times, so perhaps it can't sink in? and were i to play that game of paraphrasing then i could say that your pov is "i don't like guns because i'm a left wing liberal and you can't have them"

in the future, do try to stick with quoting instead of paraphrasing, it gets you in much less hot water.

and yes, i can too have a monopoly on how people interpret my words. they are, after all, my words, and if you muck up the statements to further your own agenda then expect to be called on it.

furthermore, your school bully act and your inability to admit you're wrong is amusing.

and should someone decide to do so, what's the problem with it? your personal dislike for guns?

Outside of the original context that I wrote that (in response to derekkj's post) I think that stands as an example of "unreasonable interpretation". But anyway...

My personal opinion is that guns are not needed for personal/home protection (which is why I will never own one), but I think (at least part of the reason people buy them for that reason) is the result of want them because the fear of violent crime (propagated by the media) that outweighs the likelihood of actually being a victim.

yet such is currently a person's right but apparently not if you have your way. just because you've not been victimized does not mean everyone should give up their guns. should i paraphrase that into "i've never been victimized, so no one needs any form of protection due to my own experience" now?