Lucky...

Gawain drops a racial comment and you don't understand Corpus Delicti or double jeoprdy and all Gawain can do is give me shit for not knowing about a satirical website while hwt thinks MSNBCBS is a real media outlet. Guess you're jumping on board. Supposition does not mean reality . . . only in yours, where you think your wishes come true just because tyhey are your wishes. And the troops rally behind their conservative brother... it's tear inspiring. We know what he wrote.

This just helps to show that 'our' countries are run by big business not our 'elected' politicians ..... Which is corporatism / fascism

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... Right , we'll just keep playing stupid so as not to further upset you. No loud noises anyone. "Sorry" wouldn't require asterisks. If you can find a single racist comment I've made on DZ.com, you'd be vindicated. However, it appears to be everyone else defaulting to racist innuendo...not I. So there's your homework: find any racist comment I've made here with derogatory intent. Contact the Onion and have them send a news crew to cover the event. Then you'll have an incident that can be cataloged on wikipedia. Get going.... We have you refering to Obama as his black ass, as you veiled it in asterisks, I wasn't teh first to notice. Keep the lies going, you've tipped your hand ALL THE WAY OVER. How you interpret is not within my control. We all know your line of thinking whereas no one can reasonably believe your assertions. It's not my assertion, in a fit of RW rage, you wrote the likeness of, "black ass." Squirm, wiggle; none of us libs ever thought anything less than RWers are racists; we get it even w/o your slip.

Gawain drops a racial comment and you don't understand Corpus Delicti or double jeoprdy and all Gawain can do is give me shit for not knowing about a satirical website while hwt thinks MSNBCBS is a real media outlet. Guess you're jumping on board.

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... Right , we'll just keep playing stupid so as not to further upset you. No loud noises anyone. "Sorry" wouldn't require asterisks. If you can find a single racist comment I've made on DZ.com, you'd be vindicated. However, it appears to be everyone else defaulting to racist innuendo...not I. So there's your homework: find any racist comment I've made here with derogatory intent. Contact the Onion and have them send a news crew to cover the event. Then you'll have an incident that can be cataloged on wikipedia. Get going.... We have you refering to Obama as his black ass, as you veiled it in asterisks, I wasn't teh first to notice. Keep the lies going, you've tipped your hand ALL THE WAY OVER.

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... Right , we'll just keep playing stupid so as not to further upset you. No loud noises anyone. "Sorry" wouldn't require asterisks.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcoyG-Ck3-VwZB7fqpUFXbffoObg Give me a f**k**g break...Sir, the very means and activities which you are bemoaning are the very means by which you mobilized young students to get out and vote for your ***** *** in the first place. At least he got this part right: Damn right sir, and you're about to witness citizens fulfilling the obligations of their citizenship this coming November. I guess "***** ***" means "black ass." I see, and the RW isn't racist. Now I get it. You can say, "Sir" all you want, your disdain and reference to his race aren't mitigated by it. I guess comments about electronics trumps lesser important things like the economy, which is rebounding amazingly.

I'm in the majority, I'm finally happy after all these years, why would I squirm? You need to get a win before you brag, your side is still in denial, hence I see them continuing to slide. And to AZ I say: Thank you, keep motivating the youth and minority vote; the same thing that ended up so nicely in Nov 08.

ya..IMHO, you text book know it alls are the problem.... You asked what my experience was, I was just answering. How can I be the problem when I don't work in the field? I did those three years voluntarily as part of several differnt studies...but if it make you feel better, I did 3 months for drunk driving... OK, so did you volunteer to be locked up under the guise of being convicted/sentenced? I've never heard of such a thing. Expound, are you saying you spent 3 years in jail/prison as a prisoner or not? ya...dude struck his girlfriend in the stomach several times with a baseball bat because he didn't want a lil baby girl....they chrushed his balls and fucked him with his own dick erected with golf pencils...he woulda bled out in the shower...but i notified my contact...the man is now living happily in naples as a eunich. So this is a story you know of, you laid no introduction. You sound as if this was eye for eye and fair. This the where we're trying to corner you, is jailhouse justice at the hands of prisoners fair and just under our legal system? Was Dahmer's murder after 2 attempts the way the system is supposed to work? Doesn't the penal system carry the burden to protect prisoners from each other? I'm a criminal field researcher...my heroes are Cohen and Felson. That generally means a person who reads data, makes observations, interviews prisoners, etc. Be descript. all my research is documented. Ok but that doesn't answer my point: Being nonchalant about jailhouse misconduct doesn't exact this. Do you feel it's just fine when other prisoners beat, rape, kill certain prisoners?

I have a BS in Justice and a lot of other realted experience and research. So WTF does, "I spent 3 fuckin non- consecutive years locked up studying this shit.... " mean? Were you an inmate? Again, the point I made was: A) And you advocated that by your previous posts. Also, baby shaking isn't the same as cho-mo's, so I don't think a baby-shaker would be subject to the same kind treatment by any stretch that a cho-mo would. Care to address it w/o worrying about me? I think sometimes they aren't aware, sometimes they are and sometimes they arrange it. Again, all you can do is make this about me; you sound very acceptingg of jailhouse assaults and murder as a way of getting things done. You seem preoccupied that I must do, know, etc......I guess that's easier than actually answering anything. What's your job? Are you a guard, PO, etc? But aside from you and your alleged job, again, "we need to establish a corrections system that will turn out law-abiding, productive people." Being nonchalant about jailhouse misconduct doesn't exact this.

So any reply to this: Not that I get off on profile info, I see yours as a guy in the USAF at Wurtsmith who: freelance editor / criminal field research So is this research a hobby or?????? To advocate a prison / judicial system that acts like the Star chambers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber is like advocating murder and no justice behind teh guise of justice..... = farse.

You mean if he is found guilty. And there is no reason to shake a baby whatsoever. Well, we were having a rational conversation. Hey, if you don't assume there's a God, I won't assume there's a Peter Pan. Let's keep the fantasy aside. A) And you advocated that by your previous posts. Also, baby shaking isn't the same as cho-mo's, so I don't think a baby-shaker would be subject to the same kind treatment by any stretch that a cho-mo would. You sound pretty accepting that jail staff allows beating, shankings and sodomy. B) Do you want to turn out ex-cons like that? Yea, then I quit dropping acid. Back to reality, we need to establish a corrections system that will turn out law-abiding, productive people rather than better criminals with no ability to succeed.

No...I'm just saying let him be judged by his REAL peers... Not that I get off on profile info, I see yours as a guy in the USAF at Wurtsmith who: freelance editor / criminal field research So is this research a hobby or?????? To advocate a prison / judicial system that acts like the Star chambers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber is like advocating murder and no justice behind teh guise of justice..... = farse.

No...I'm just saying let him be judged by his REAL peers... You're advocating prison violence. Why have prison if you're gonna just have them places to murder people? How are we better than the scum if we set up places that behave like that?

He goes to trial for the assault, if found guilty, he goes to jail and gets shanked....God willing of course. Apparently God would be there to do it, it seems everyone that goes to jail finds God there. God's like an eternal lifer. So are you saying fuck the system, no laws, rules, bounds? Hell, why not just advocate a lynch mob for everyone, guilty and not guilty alike?

What should happen? We have an adversarial system, so since the prosecution is, er, opportunistic and just wants to trash every son of a bitch that comes thru, use every sleezy tactic they can to send every son of bitch down for as long as they can, I say that the D's need to be as tactical. The real problem with the criminal (so-called) justice system is that prosecutors and pigs for that matter carry little-to-no liability, so they act as sleezy as they wish. What should happen is a system be established that tries to find the truth, guilty D's get what's coming and sleezy prosecutors, instead of losing the evidence, lose their ass when they lie/suppress/etc. Since my utopian system will never come about, D's have to keep matching sleezy tactic with the prosecution, so if I were him I would push for a fast trial and to not pull the plug.

That's what I found too, but appellants keep citing Ball, giving the cts headaches. Not really to much effect in modern times. Ball was an 1896 decision, and has been largely superseded by subsequent caselaw and statutes. Yes it is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=373 It looks like most states have abolished as of teh last few years, I think Alabama is still in effect from my research. In Cali it apears to br 3 years and a day, some states haven't picked a time statute. http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/8b3110f558f1f8ef85256ebe006269ad/$FILE/RD45.PDF Actually as of 2002 7 still follow the law. But actually with fair and spedy trial provisions, a D can be in and out of trial in < a year, so a year and a day would suffice along with strong opposition to plug-pulling.

I don't necessarily disagree with you guys but who do you think will replace them? Something/someone better? With all due respect, that's naive. As long as elections, key politicians and the mainstream news media (at all ends of the political spectrum) are all bought and paid for by the wealthiest families and corporations that really own the USA - which is to say, forever - nothing will change, even on the rare occasions that it appears to. Don't be naive, these guys were happy as pigs in shit when their turd, namely Reagan and GWB were running the debt and are primarily accountable for most of the debt, yet Obama and the Dems inherit this crap and now it's time to start blaming. This so-called grass-roots tea bagger BS is nothing more than partisan idiocy.

I see and you never said this while Reagan was trippling the debt, GWB was running it 5T. Riiiiight, we get it, just as the tea baggers had no problem with spending while their turds were in office, now it's an, er, uh, non-partisan cleaning of the gubbment. At least make your guy's BS sound reasonable as you spoon feed us.

Proof that this groundswell of dissent is against the incumbents in general, regardless of party. If we're really lucky, maybe we can replace all 435 in the House and whoever many are up in the Senate this year. Why? The economic meltdown? It was in teh works for years, why clean house? Or was it just fine to keep all in while Dumbya was in, now that you're in the minority it's clean hosue time. I think teh voters have cleaned house and senate, pun intended, in the last 3 elections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100508/ap_on_el_se/us_utah_senate The Republican joke machine is still confused. The country has spoken 3 times in a row and said they want less balls-out conservatism, yet the Utah electorate wants more. This is just good news, followed by Nazizona's idiocy for passing 1070. The first step is acknowledgement, then acceptance and yet these clowns are still in denial. All I can say is a resounding: THANK YOU.

Yet another piece of brilliance; perhaps you've heard of double jeopardy. Before you go on to state, ya, but the kid wasn't dead, DJ works like this: - All crimes stemming from the same event must be tried at once or DJ attaches. You may see a person tried all at the same time for homicide, murder, endangerment, etc and be found guilty of all counts, sentenced to massive years for all counts, yet all but the highest sentences are considered, "lesser included" offenses and the sentences are concurrent to the higher one. Now the caviat to this *could* be one of jurisdiction, if this were a matter that qualified for state and federal prosecution then the other jurisidction could pick it up and prosecute for murder. One thing for sure, the D will demand a fair and speedy trial while his team also demands the paternal right of keeping the child plugged in, simultaneosly the state will assist the mother in trying to get the plug pulled. I wonder if the law was ever about seeking truth rather than just getting a win? I was so busy laughing at the thought of prosecuting someone for murder while the victim in question was still alive so I missed this one .

That's what I found too, but appellants keep citing Ball, giving the cts headaches.

They probably should've just taken the whole damn country...what a hell-hole. And we fault Japan for being Imperialists. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

On the surface this sounded like a no-brainer but upon further review this is a tough one. The child must stay on life support until after the trial, but the trial should probably be for murder. Can you have a trial like this only to have it re-opened for murder? It really isn't difficult to understand why the father-defendant wants to keep the baby alive for at least a year and a day (+ 1 day to be sure). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_and_a_day_rule This is a legal move, not one of love and caring. Agg Assault or reckless endangerment, etc.... becomes murder if the infant dies within a year and a day under English Common Law, I think most states adhere to this and it may be federal as in SCOTUS. >>>>>>>>>>>> The child must stay on life support until after the trial, but the trial should probably be for murder. If the child stays on life support throughout his trial, it can't be for murder . And the mother, in an understandable fit of anger and revenge, wants teh baby dead soit can be for murder. Isn't the adversary system of justice we have where the state is essentially the victim just wonderful? The application of the rule was a custom of English law that became enshrined in common law. The rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. English law is now substantially revised such that if a specific act can be proved to be the cause of death, it can now constitute murder regardless of the intervening time. The abolition of the rule does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation to prove, in cases of murder, that the accused intended to cause either death or serious injury. *YAWN* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Reform_(Year_and_a_Day_Rule)_Act_1996 The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 is a short Act of Parliament which abolished the year and a day rule in English law. It was aboloished in England, as I said, not sure if all states acknowledge the law or if it is a Fed / SCOTUS thing. Just because we copied English Common Law and the same changes doesn't mean we still follow them as they change. Remember, this was a state crime and state laws apply unless there have been supreme ct rulings. Now, explain how you were saying the child should be kept on life support and the D tried for murder . Does the phrase, Corpus Delicti ring a bell? So before you keep looking silly, as usual, I will do the research. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-141213304/year-and-day-rule.html US v Ball: The Supreme Court first applied the year-and-a-day rule in Ball v. United States. (9) In that case, the Court overturned the murder convictions of three men because the indictments against them failed to allege that the victim died within one year and a day from the attack. Now that we know it is SCOTUS, some states adhere to it via state law, some are forced to via SCOTUS stare decisis. Either way, Ball seems to apply here in the US, pitty you didn't hit the prompt on the 1st page I referenced so you could see that it was OVERRULED IN ENGLAND, NOT HERE IN THE US WHERE THE CRIME YOU POSTED OCCURRED. I'm assigning you jurisdiction homework; don't be late. http://definitions.uslegal.com/y/year-and-a-day-rule/ This site claims that some states have abrogated the year and a day rule, but if it's SCOTUS they cannot ignore it. Here's another site that states what I've been saying: http://www.floridalawreview.org/july08/Wilbanks-BOOK.pdf States hate the rule, SCOTUS keeps it alive.