|
|
Post by reason on Mar 17, 2006 5:09:58 GMT -5
You're using the faulty logic usually reserved for Republican Party spokesmen-- non sequitur. The large numbers of death row inmates has no bearing upon the injustice of cutting off the admissibility of exculpatory evidence after an arbitrary time period. In other words, you're changing the subject because your previous position became indefensable.  |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 17, 2006 20:43:43 GMT -5
You're using the faulty logic usually reserved for Republican Party spokesmen-- non sequitur. The large numbers of death row inmates has no bearing upon the injustice of cutting off the admissibility of exculpatory evidence after an arbitrary time period. In other words, you're changing the subject because your previous position became indefensable. Didn't change the subject Reason. I'm still wondering what the difference is between a life sentence and a death sentence if the death sentence isn't carried out. Can you answer that question? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 17, 2006 20:59:24 GMT -5
And back to the topic at hand......The Deltona Mass Murders.
THANK YOU JUDGE PARSONS for disallowing the dog's death to be thrown out. Yep, those defense attorneys are scrambling. Talk about trying to remove evidence.......there's one attempt that got shot down!
Tonya
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 17, 2006 22:02:04 GMT -5
You're using the faulty logic usually reserved for Republican Party spokesmen--non sequitur. The large numbers of death row inmates has no bearing upon the injustice of cutting off the admissibility of exculpatory evidence after an arbitrary time period.
In other words, you're changing the subject because your previous position became indefensable. In answer to your question (see, I don't try to evade the questions, like some people around here), there would be no difference between a life sentence and a death sentence which isn't carried out. However, you did in fact change the subject. We were debating whether there should be arbitrary limitations on admissibility of exculpatory evidence for death row inmates whose sentences haven't yet been carried out. You contend that there should be, and you were asked to justify it. You apparently cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 17, 2006 22:19:49 GMT -5
Didn't change the subject Reason. I'm still wondering what the difference is between a life sentence and a death sentence if the death sentence isn't carried out. Can you answer that question? Tonya In answer to your question (see, I don't try to evade the questions, like some people around here), there would be no difference between a life sentence and a death sentence which isn't carried out. However, you did in fact change the subject. We were debating whether there should be arbitrary limitations on admissibility of exculpatory evidence for death row inmates whose sentences haven't yet been carried out. You contend that there should be, and you were asked to justify it. You apparently cannot. I justify my stance by supporting the death sentence which was determined in a court of law but somehow gets sidetracked. I ask what takes so long to the execute the sentence? You admit there is really no difference between the death sentence and life sentence. Where is the real justice Reason? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 18, 2006 7:04:16 GMT -5
Goddammit, quit changing the subject! Jeezus Christ, it's maddening trying to discuss a point with you.
I answered you, now it's your turn to answer me. If you don't, I'll know that you recognize you cannot defend your position.
What is the justification for arbitrary limitations on admissibility of exculpatory evidence for death row inmates whose sentences haven't yet been carried out?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 18, 2006 22:03:04 GMT -5
Goddammit, quit changing the subject! Jeezus Christ, it's maddening trying to discuss a point with you. I answered you, now it's your turn to answer me. If you don't, I'll know that you recognize you cannot defend your position. What is the justification for arbitrary limitations on admissibility of exculpatory evidence for death row inmates whose sentences haven't yet been carried out? Sounds like you are frustrated Reason. Don't take it out on me because Judge Parsons is allowed to stay on this case. Sorry for your luck. To answer your question on arbitrary limitations on admissibility of exculpatory evidence for death row inmates, I am not against entertaining that while they are on death row. My gripe is that they should not sit on death row for 30 frickin years! Satisfied? I answered you, but with hesitation when you use God's name in vain to start your last post, that makes my sphincter muscle pucker. And you call me foul mouthed? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 19, 2006 7:05:43 GMT -5
Sounds like you are frustrated Reason. Don't take it out on me because Judge Parsons is allowed to stay on this case. Sorry for your luck. Wow, are you weird. What is this supposed to mean? What makes you think I care who the judge is? Parsons will do a fine job. Are you off your meds? Did your tinfoil beanie slip off?  |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 19, 2006 10:34:10 GMT -5
Sounds like you are frustrated Reason. Don't take it out on me because Judge Parsons is allowed to stay on this case. Sorry for your luck. Wow, are you weird. What is this supposed to mean? What makes you think I care who the judge is? Parsons will do a fine job. Are you off your meds? Did your tinfoil beanie slip off? From your previous comment on Judge Parsons you did not approve of him allowing the case to be tried locally. It is also apparent the defense attorneys are doing everything they can to get him off the case. My assumption, and perhaps it was wrong, is since you have sided with the defense attorneys in this debate you would also agree with them on this issue. OBTW, I'm weird on or off drugs.   Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 19, 2006 16:56:44 GMT -5
I only side with the defense attorneys when they're right, which they were on the subject of venue change. I happen to think the ruling on allowing evidence of the death of the dog was correct.
See, the difference between you and me is that I want a fair trial, and you appear merely to want a conviction by any means. I harbor no doubts that the defendants will be convicted even if they were to win every motion, meritorious or not--the evidence will be that overwhelming.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 19, 2006 17:47:30 GMT -5
I only side with the defense attorneys when they're right, which they were on the subject of venue change. I happen to think the ruling on allowing evidence of the death of the dog was correct. See, the difference between you and me is that I want a fair trial, and you appear merely to want a conviction by any means. I harbor no doubts that the defendants will be convicted even if they were to win every motion, meritorious or not--the evidence will be that overwhelming. Where did you get the notion I did not want a fair trial? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 19, 2006 18:30:23 GMT -5
Where did you get the notion I did not want a fair trial? Tonya From your general attitude of disdain for those procedural safeguards intended to secure a fair trial. This thread has quite a history of it--your advocacy for admitting evidence that is irrelevant but prejudicial, your objection to venue change from the area with media saturation, and your preference for speedy resolution over taking time to ensure a just result. |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 19, 2006 23:04:22 GMT -5
Where did you get the notion I did not want a fair trial? Tonya From your general attitude of disdain for those procedural safeguards intended to secure a fair trial. This thread has quite a history of it--your advocacy for admitting evidence that is irrelevant but prejudicial, your objection to venue change from the area with media saturation, and your preference for speedy resolution over taking time to ensure a just result. Well, fair is fair, and the defense attorneys tried to throw out the killing of the victim's pet dog as prejudicial evidence, but that isn't going to happen. The media is just doing their job, just like the attorneys. Only difference is the media isn't representing murderers, just reporting the facts as they get them. You say I have a preference for a speedy resolution AND I never said that. I am all for a fair trial, however........... (Pay close attention here Reason) Read my lips  AFTER THE VERDICT IS DETERMINED, PROCEED IN A TIMELY MANNER TO CARRY OUT THE SENTENCE. And yes, I'm referring to the death penalty. 30 years on death row!? That is not justice and THAT IS NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE SENTENCE!
Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 20, 2006 11:10:56 GMT -5
All caps is construed in internet circles as shouting, and is considered rude. Your beef with the length of time between sentence and execution is not one I have challenged. Take a pill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Mar 25, 2006 22:45:17 GMT -5
Yes, the trial should have been moved to a less biased area. And hopefully, both the defense and prosecuting teams will try this case paying close attention to the law. This will ensure that the convictions cannot be overturned.
|
|
