Guilty of at least one count of 1st degree murder
Gulilty of at least one count of 1st or 2nd degree murder
Reactions?
Printable View
Guilty of at least one count of 1st degree murder
Gulilty of at least one count of 1st or 2nd degree murder
Reactions?
Actual verdict:
Guilty of the murder of Laci in the first degree
Guilty of the murder of Baby Connor in the second
Agreed to the special circumstance.
I'm glad this is done and I don't give a rat's ass about anyone involved in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean_mackrory
My girlfriend made a good point about this which actually kind of worries me a little bit. The idea that he is guilty of murdering his unborn son could be the first step in declaring abortion murder. Seems unlikely to me, but then again law is all about precedence.
Considering that the law has been on the books for a while and has actually been used many times I don't think it's that big of a threat to abortion. Not that it would hurt my feelings but thats another matter. And IIRC the child was far enough along that abortion would have been illegal.
Yeah, she was what, 8 months pregnant?
Besides, the right to abortion is (right or wrong) based on the constitution, and the only way that gets overturned is by re-interpretation by the SCOTUS or amendment by Congress. You've got a lot more chance at seeing abortion overturned by Bush-friendly SC justices than this.
>And IIRC the child was far enough along that abortion would have been illegal.
She was 9 months pregnant. Killing that (unborn)baby is considered murder.
Terminating a womans pregnancy without her consent if she was say, one month pregnant would at least be considered man slaughter or 3rd deg. murder, even though if she wanted to end the pregnancy it would have been legal in some places because of abortion laws.
I'm glad we didn't have another OJ case on this one.
> I'm glad we didn't have another OJ case on this one.
I don't really see how this is any different.
LOL last time I just listen to my girlfriends opinion on something without checking in on it. She made it sound like the baby was much younger. I'll be honest, haven't been following this story at all :D
> I don't really see how this is any different.
I realize you might not remember this, but OJ got off.
Peterson is looking at the possibility of the Death Penalty.
Difference? big
OK, that's what I figured you meant. I meant that there's a huge media spectacle over 2 people dying that no one at large really cared about or even knew existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by B0bDole
Also, why the hell wouldn't I remember OJ got off?
> Also, why the hell wouldn't I remember OJ got off?
Because that is how these two cases are e.actly opposite, and you said they were the same, so I figured you forgot
The verdicts are the only thing that're opposite here, the rest is basically the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by B0bDole
Let's agree to disagree before someone insults someone else's baby momma.
>Let's agree to disagree before someone insults someone else's baby momma.
Ok. but..... guh ok.
gRRR
Im with cheez, glad its over.
yo baby momma so fat that she be breakin scales all up in this pieceQuote:
Originally Posted by B0bDole
:shakes head:
damn chez your usually more clever than that.....
>yo baby momma so fat that she be breakin scales all up in this piece
yo baby momma was killed by Scott Peterson.
hm...this thread turned into nothing a little faster than I expected :rolleyes:
Well when you start with nothing it doesn't take long to get to nothing.
The picture on the front page of CNN right now is positively embarrassing.
LOL bwahahahaha
Hahaha! Thats a great picture! :p
Rofl ya thats a pretty dumb picture
This one?
Yeah. It looks like something out of a bad movie.
AOL at least has a slightly more flattering picture of him...
I didn't think they had enough to actually convict him on, although I thought he did it the whole time.
I don't think they honestly had enough evidence to convict the guy; Even the prosecuting attorneys agreed that it was all circumstantial evidence. I also think convicting him of the murder of "Connor" was wrong, mainly because it is a double standard if applied generally : woman wants abortion, she gets it - NOT-MURDER; man beats women, causing her to miscarry - MURDER.
how did they even come up with a name for the unborn baby. It didn't have a real name because you don't get those till youre born, I wonder if the press made up the name.
1) The baby was far enough along that it would have been illegal to abort anywaysQuote:
Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE
2) What's it called when the baby dies because the mom is killed and then is cut out of the womb?
supposedly She was going to name him Connor; however, the real reason is that by attaching a name to a fetus, you can get more sympathy votes for a bill.Quote:
It didn't have a real name because you don't get those till youre born, I wonder if the press made up the name.
your an idiot. At the stage of her pregnancy abortion was an illegal option, so how the hell.....oh never mind youd miss the point anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE
Its actually quite common to have a name picked out beforehand. And I've heard that one step in therapy for women that have miscarried, aborted, or had a still birth (or lost their child before birth in some other way) is to name the child.Quote:
how did they even come up with a name for the unborn baby.
Oh yeah: Hey stupid (Ev) its called choice. While I do not support abortion, I do see a big difference between abortion and a 3rd party murdering the child.
internet!
Abortion is a fancy name for population control.
Along with 'programmer'Quote:
Originally Posted by RoD
:)
What?
Anyway. Can abortion be interpereted as murder? IMO, No. But that answer lies entirely in what you believe about the creation of a human being. Medically speaking the fetus is not yet a pain feeling, lively human being when its within the abortion legal time frame.
Should women have a choice? Absolutely. Dont give me that "she shoulda been more careful" crap either, because nothing but abstenence is perfect, and abstenence makes you a prude.
Shoould she have a choice once "life" is established medically? Hell no.
Save the case of rape: Didn't she make a choice to engage in sexual activites which have been medically shown to be the number 1 cause of pregency?Quote:
Should women have a choice? Absolutely.
Hmmm I don't think anyone here would call me a prude.Quote:
because nothing but abstenence is perfect, and abstenence makes you a prude.
That means we can kill her because she doesn't feel painQuote:
Medically speaking the fetus is not yet a pain feeling
edit: This is fun
> Didn't she make a choice to engage in sexual activites which have been medically shown to be the number 1 cause of pregency?
I think we're past the point where every sexual encounter should be required to produce a child. Are you also against the use of birth control?
No I'm not against birth control in the least. I also have no problem with the "morning after" pill. But I do find the choice argument flawed. Again saving rape, a women chooses to engage in sex and she gets pregeant. Choice - possible result. Now that child never asked to be concieved it had no control over the situation. But a women can choose to kill that lifeform. Something just seems kinda screwy to me.
Oh and for the record I completely support abortions in case of medical neccessity. I'm also sympathetic to those who get abortions due to rape, incest, or medical malformation of the baby.
edit: Oh I would really like to see some proof of RoD's claim that they can't feel pain. I haven't seen anything one way or the other in that regard.
Again, then, it's up to the definition of what you consider a life form.
>medical malformation of the baby.
so youre ok with killing someone because they're different
Re-read the sentance. I said I was sympathetic, it doesn't mean I agree just that I can understand. And by malformation I was refering to serious problems (ie not developing certain organs).
Then what do you consider a life form? When the child is viable outside the womb? How viable? At what point during the pregancy does it go from a simple collection of cells to a human?Quote:
Again, then, it's up to the definition of what you consider a life form.
You're going to hate this answer, but I haven't decided yet (not that my opinion matters at large anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
A pro-choice girl in my class recently got angry at the teacher for killing a spider walking across her desk. I jokingly pointed out that she supported abortion and her reply was, "babies don't kill mosquitoes".
True, but (although thanks to this whole Amber Frie business we don't know for sure) Laci was in a much more stable position than some teenager in high school who gets drunk and makes a bad choice she's not prepared to live with. Laci and Scott were probably trying have a baby, and were prepared to provide for him.Quote:
Didn't she make a choice to engage in sexual activites which have been medically shown to be the number 1 cause of pregency?
Besides, when did the whole argument turn to Laci getting an abortion? Sure, discussing a double murder charge is relevant, but Laci wasn't going to get an abortion. To echo Thantos, there's a big difference between being murdered while pregnant, and getting an abortion.
I don't hate that answer, its a tough question.
Btw who in the hell gave me neg rep for my first post in this thread?
I don't know but it sure wasn't me I can tell you that much for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
Yeah, its someone who's jealous of my jelly bean count.
This is nice. From my feedbackYour opinion notwithstanding (whoever left this), the decision IS based on the Constitution, as are all SCOTUS decisions.Quote:
It is not based on the Constitution -- it contradicts the constitution and is an unconstitutional decision.
It'd be pretty cool if whoever left me that would own up to it.
Rape is an absolute exception. Be it abortion or adoption, lay that blame upon the sex offender not upon the woman who was done completely and utterly wrong. As to when its considered a life form? I think its kinda case by case, honestly.
Well then I don't consider you a life form so I should be able to terminate you. But I can't. Why because at some point we have to say "This is a life form, this isn't a life form". You can't say its case by case because then where do you draw the line?
> Well then I don't consider you a life form so I should be able to terminate you. But I can't
Let's consider who we're talking about here.
For serious, though, it's not who you personally deem "not a lifeform", it's what society (or lawmakers, or whoever) decides what is/isn't a lifeform.
edit: Case by case isn't a good idea, either.
Well I don't think many in society would disagree with me in this case ;)
Hmm, solid reply you make a good point. How about we define life in its true sense for a moment.
Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Considering all of these, its very hard to be in my opinion, and here is why. If we define life as a "response to stimuli", or "growth", than anything that is not man made is officially a living thing and for that matter it is illegal to kill it.
So from that stance, abortion is murder. However, there is a point of "life" of the fetus at which it is not aware it is even alive, to the best of our knowledge. It is in this time period the decision to, or not to, abort must be made.
Accidents happen, and some can be corrected. Sadly the majority of abortions in this country are probably not due to reasons i would consider just, such as rape, but rather because hillbilly hussie brandie, from trailer park b, sleeps with alot of guys with no protection and couldnt give two craps. Thats not right, BUT, would we rather the baby was born into a family sure to put the majority of his youth on cops?
Are some kids not better off? Abortion is very severe in its existence, and sometimes, yes its wrong, but in some cases, the other options are far worse. I mean, if we leave it up to the goverment, they would deny the vast majority of abortions. We've already stated that this majority is trailer trash hoebags having kids by different raced parents.
So do we deny the public choice, and flood it with trailer trash crime children? Or do we suck up the slight lack of morality and disguist and turn our heads for the better of mankind?
Personally, i choose the latter.
In this case, the best of our knowledge is pretty darn pathetic.Quote:
However, there is a point of "life" of the fetus at which it is not aware it is even alive, to the best of our knowledge.
I agree, but i mean, its what we have.
definition of murder:Quote:
Oh yeah: Hey stupid (Ev) its called choice. While I do not support abortion, I do see a big difference between abortion and a 3rd party murdering the child.
Basically your argument is that a fetus is a person if I as a third party kill it, but it is just an extension of a woman's body if she gets an abortion. I believe that at most I should be charged with assault and be sued for some personal damages(like if I cut someone's hand off against their will).Quote:
# The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
how can destroying a group of cells that only has the potential to be human be considered murder in one case, but something ok in another. That is a pretty blatant double standard, and I disagree with the idea of a double standard in a law, especially one that involves a right as basic as abortion.
in relating this to the case, I think that the conviction of 1st degree murder is ok, but the second conviction lays the presidence for someone being charged for murder for killing a woman that has a previously unknown status of pregnancy.
Dude, when are you going to see the point that everyone is trying to make?? You would have a case IF the baby was of abortion age, but it wasn't. The fetus was 9-months and any mother aborting a baby at that age WOULD be considered a murderer.
He cant hear us, the ignorance has clogged his ears.
I blame the turbin. (ITS A JOKE)
Edit: I decided to explain the joke a little.
I have known about a dozen people who converted from one religion to another. All of them went with the extreme sect of that religion and became complete dumbarses like Ev here.
What's religion got to do his inability to see the point?
MESSAGE TO --EVBLADERUNNER--
You know that I'm just as against abortion as you are, but try to understand one statement:
When Laci Peterson was killed, the fetus inside her womb was old enough that under US law an abortion would be considered illegal unless circumstances regarding threats to health changed.
No, I am not arguing against abortion. In fact, rather opposite. I know(tm) that the abortion of Connor at 9 months would of been considered murder; I was talking about the Lacy-Connor law, not this specific case. According to the Lacy-Connor law, a woman can be 3 weeks along in her pregnancy and if I beat her up and she miscarries, I can be charged with 1st degree murder. This also opens up the possibility of a woman who regrets an abortion suing the doctor that performed the procedure by saying that she changed her mind and they went through with it anyway. That is just not fair at all and blatantly disregards Roe v. Wade. The reason I mention it in regards to this case is that even though abortion would of been considered murder then, this sets up legal presidence that it is ok to charge a guy for murdering a fetus.
> All of them went with the extreme sect of that religion and became complete dumbarses like Ev here.
I seriously doubt extreme sects of Islam are afraid of abortion being banned.
Oh now I see what you're trying to say. So I guess this derives from your belief that domestic violence is okay?Quote:
a woman can be 3 weeks along in her pregnancy and if I beat her up and she miscarries, I can be charged with 1st degree murder.
no, it was just an example; I disagree with domestic violence.Quote:
So I guess this derives from your belief that domestic violence is okay?
So what exactly is it that you find morally reprehensible about a man who beats a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage being charged with murder?
The fact that the "bundle of cells" inside of her has rights in that case, but has no rights if they died under circumstances the woman supported and chose to happen. I think that the man should be charged with assault, and maybe be involved in a civil suit.
Thank you. You just learned how to clearly articulate an opinion.
I agree with the law.
Abortion by choice = OK.
Abortion by unwillfull force = not ok.
So i agree with the law, they arent saying abortion is murder all the time, only when forced. Matter of fact, i say once your diagnosed pregnant that should be the case, not three weeks.
read the legal definition of murder, it applies to a human being, not a "sack of cells"/zygote/fetus. Allowing a fetus to be considered a person or human being for any case opens the door for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Relativism should not be allowed at all regarding something that is a constitutional right.Quote:
Abortion by choice = OK.
Abortion by unwillfull force = not ok.
So i agree with the law, they arent saying abortion is murder all the time, only when forced.
I would most certainly hope so!Quote:
no, it was just an example; I disagree with domestic violence.
Wait, whoa, apply the brake force Luke, I'm confused...I must've missed something here. How does that open the door for the Roe V. Wade case to be overturned? They ruled in favor of her that she should be allowed to have the choice to abort the baby (although by the time the case was settled, she had the baby and gave it up or adoption). That's just a case of Abortion by choice. I agree with what RoD said.Quote:
read the legal definition of murder, it applies to a human being, not a "sack of cells"/zygote/fetus. Allowing a fetus to be considered a person or human being for any case opens the door for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Relativism should not be allowed at all regarding something that is a constitutional right.
edit:
Besides, in the ironic side of things the death of the baby is a moot point as far as I'm concerned, because if I had my way I'd just have him executed for the brutal murder of Laci.
Yes but I always have felt that double standards are bad for all those on the bad side of it *thinks back to segregation and the years before women/black's admission into the franchise*
EDIT: just realized that if I really felt that way, I would have to :
1) give up my religion; as according to it: one group goes to heaven , the rest go to hell.
2) think that rape is ok(another case of "choice" on the woman's part)
.
.
.
the list goes on.
Double standard?
A pregnant lady was brutally murdered, hacked into pieces, and dumped into a river...what the hell are you talking about?
I think I will just have to leave from the point that everyone here is taking the far-right opinion that there were two individuals murdered that day, while I believe only one was.
Or you could explain yourself. Otherwise it just seems like you are taking the easy way out. At least I admit when I am wrong, or at least not making any sense (which right now, you aren't).
edit:
Do you feel no compassion for the family that lost a daughter and a grandchild? Sometimes the intellectual stance isn't the appropriate one buddy, and I'm usually on the 'left' side of things, but come on, give me a break.
I admit that I am not making sense... too many exams, too little time.
I personally feel that while a fetus is in the woman's body, an individual should not be held liable for murder if actions inflicted on the mother have mortal repercussions on the fetus. The individual should however be responsible financially for any emotional trauma that is imparted on the mother due to the miscarriage(i.e. civil suit).
EDIT: I do feel pretty sad for the family, I just don't think that the justice system should have such a shoddy(really up to interpretation whether the individual was going against the woman's choice) law.
Okay, that was very clear, very concise, and made sense :)
That's one of the dumber things I've read on here in awhile. The person's not responsible as long as they pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE
Because the fetus is just a collection of cells, it is no more wrong than if I cut of someone's finger. if you did the previous you would be charged with assault(like one would for beating a woman), and probably be sued for the loss of dexterity/finances incurred by the finger being cut off.
of course that is presuming you agree that a fetus is just a jumble of cells.