Interesting dimension to all of this...they found him guilty for murder of an unborn child. This might have some implications that the prosecution may not have realized.........
So, Peterson could not have been tried under that federal law:
First, a state court would not have jurisdiction to try a case using federal law (it would have to be tried in federal court).
Secondly, it wouldn't be possible to try Peterson under a law passed after the fact (violation of ex post facto protections). Laci Peterson was murdered in (2002?). The law was passed last May.
What I was talking about was that this is the first time I've heard about somebody being convicted using those fetus homicide laws. It will be interesting to hear if that verdict is allowed to stand or if the law is declared unconstitutional. Why? Because he was convicted of murder of his unborn child. I would think that a person would need to be a person (with human rights) in order to be murdered. Peterson could not have "murdered" a legal non-entity, which essentially is the legal status given a fetus. So, I would think that if that verdict stands and the law is not declared unconstitutional, it would provide some kind of a precedent that might be able to be used against womens' health clinics in the future, particularly those that perform late term abortions.
quote: Interesting dimension to all of this...they found him guilty for murder of an unborn child. This might have some implications that the prosecution may not have realized.........
The pro-abortion crowd had a real fit over this definition early on. To them, the unborn baby was just a "thing", and not a person -- and even though Lacy had a name picked out, it's sex was known, etc., etc., they all had a major blow-out because of those implications. The "unborn child definiton" was perceived to be a wrecking ball headed straight for the foundation of the "wall of ignorance" that they have tried to foist on the American public for so many years.
What I find interesting is ---- I am hearing less and less of an "unborn child", and more and more of "his pregnant wife". Looks like the libs are getting the "spin" (on national media), to go their way after all.
Go back and check out the case law on that 70s law. See how many cases were tried, and what the results were.
The murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child has finally brought to the forefront of American realization, that the number one cause of death in pregnant women is murder. There are different studies in that, but overall, on the national level, domestic violence needs to be addressed by the American public.
And I hadn't checked out any of the case law on this. That's why I said "that I'd heard of." If there's already black letter law on the subject, I'd just wonder why NOW would be pitching a b*t*h about the charge? (See this thread)
But, shucks, "HotShot" coming from you is quite the high praise! Shucks ((blush))
Of course NOW is using this tragedy to exploit their platform, most, if not all political organizations will.
My personal view regarding this....it is not about the rights of the unborn. This is a domestic violence case, the most extreme, ugly and heart breaking kind. The most common kind.
What is wrong with our society today? HAVEN'T THESE CRAZY MEN EVER HEARD OF DIVORCE???? Sure, it is alot more expensive financially....but.........
"This is a domestic violence case, the most extreme, ugly and heart breaking kind. The most common kind."
and
"Hey, haven't these crazy men figured out how to keep their pants zipped (except for with their spouses)??????? "
Recently, a young man walked into a daycare center in the Detroit area and murdered his three year old daughter so he wouldn't be forced to pay child support.
Re:"Recently, a young man walked into a daycare center in the Detroit area and murdered his three year old daughter so he wouldn't be forced to pay child support."
THAT'S the reason I think Scott did it. I'm hoping these kinds of psychopaths are rare but they do occur. Of course, its not PC to call them psychopaths today but one thing the men have in common is that women tend to fall all over them. And the only ones these men love are themselves.
I'm also wondering if its more than coincidence that they tend to be very good looking. Were they born this way or made by always getting their way even when very young?
they have no cause of death, they have no evidence at all.
the case was tried on circumstance ONLY.
that is what is so rare about this trial if you ask me.
the biggest hurt was his girl friend testifying he lied to her about not being married and the fact the bodies where found two miles away from where he claimed he was fishing the day of the murder. two hundred miles away from their home.
that is one heck of a chance that the body and his fishing pad was so close yet so far away from their home the jurors didnt believe that was a chance circumstance.
it is all cirsumstance you know and could be they have no evidence really. But people think he is guilty and that is why the lawyers can appeal for an unfair trial.
kit abortion is legal and has been for thirty or more years, they can never prosecute those who perform a medical procedure even if the law is overturned because at the time it was perfectly legal .
if the law changes a huge gapping IF at this point in the courts it does not seem likely, only after a NEW law in given to make it illegal can it be enforced and only to those who break that law at that time.
this wasnt an abortion it was NOT a consentual medical procedure and that may be why they can convict in the 2nd degree.. but it will be appealed interesting case.
I recently met a woman who accused her ex husband of sleeping in the same bed with his 16 year old daughter... implying sexual abuse or something ... she wanted the divorce to drag on for YEARS and YEARS to avoid paying child support.. she came up with the most outrageous accusations over and over again to keep the case in the courts and avoid paying child support.
child support is ordered here in all divorce cases..
she lost her children they will not speak to her and they are older teen girls.. As Iwas speaking to this insane woman I was shaking with fear at her screams of injustice because he makes 50 thousand a year WHY shold she have to pay anything??
I couldnt believe it , her absolute rage with giving up a very small amount of money for the children..because her ex and his new girlfriend will take it.. bitter rage and out and out insanity of jealousy has blinded her to the love of her own children. she was a top notch mom stay at home did everything right type. now she accuses her own children of abusing her and has a serious restraining order to never go near them all this in just one year and all over paying child support.
wow .
oh I think it is possible he killed for the money , in the old days parents just disappeared when it came to the mighty buck but now with computer and laws to enforce the responsibility of a parent I do fear we may see more and more of these types of situations. scary.
I think the reason you may notice they are all very good looking is because they have focused on looking good.
My son is handsome no Im not just saying that he is handsome always has been, but he doesnt know it, when we speak he is as insecure about some minor flaw as the next guy. He really doesnt know he is a 'chick magnet" . He has had to many sisters to slap him once in awhile growing up or something he may be a little afraid of woman .
But these guys think they are a gift to woman , I do not think it is about the "LOOK" it is about the attitude they have towards the look they have like they are better or more deserving .
"they have no cause of death, they have no evidence at all.
the case was tried on circumstance ONLY."
I've got to take issue with that a little bit.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And it's not necessarily inferior, lesser evidence. It's just circumstantial.
To use the old shop-worn example that first-year law students all trot out,
If you go to bed at night and notice that it's a beautiful, moonlit evening and the lawn and the yard are bare and dry, and then wake up in the morning to find 2 feet of snow in the yard, you might assume that it had, in fact, snowed during the night. That's circumstantial evidence. No eyewitnesses, no meteorological surveys, just the circumstances that you're made aware of.
The evidence that I've heard in regards to the case, though all circumstantial, to me was pretty damning. I think they've made the right call.
Do I think he did it? it doesnt matter he was convicted by his peers in the jury they are the only ones who have to think it.
it does leave the door open for endless appeals tho, because it is all about what people think about what happened.
I am eager to find out what really happened with the forman who left and why I have heard it is because he was taking so many notes 7 note books full and the replacement really didnt have the same approach and hence the agreement .
quote: If you go to bed at night and notice that it's a beautiful, moonlit evening and the lawn and the yard are bare and dry, and then wake up in the morning to find 2 feet of snow in the yard, you might assume that it had, in fact, snowed during the night. That's circumstantial evidence. No eyewitnesses, no meteorological surveys, just the circumstances that you're made aware of.
About that snow --- any gas pumps happen to be in the neighborhood? :D-->
I agree about the "correct call". My mind was made up early on, and they should have "powered up" that chair long ago.
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Interesting dimension to all of this...they found him guilty for murder of an unborn child. This might have some implications that the prosecution may not have realized.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
yeah, what Shell said!
and yeah, what ex said too - where ya been, rottie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i have almost an addiction to violent crime
the one that haunts me is jon benet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Mark,
The 2nd degree murder conviction was made possible by the "Laci Peterson" Law which George Bush signed into law.
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
I wasn't in the jury box and didn't hear all the evidence but..
Seems logical to me. The guy's probably a stone cold pathological killer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Nope. California already had a law in place since 1970. The federal law you're talking about was signed in May of 2004 (":P-->ubl212.108" TARGET=_blank>UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004," Public Law 108-212).
So, Peterson could not have been tried under that federal law:
First, a state court would not have jurisdiction to try a case using federal law (it would have to be tried in federal court).
Secondly, it wouldn't be possible to try Peterson under a law passed after the fact (violation of ex post facto protections). Laci Peterson was murdered in (2002?). The law was passed last May.
What I was talking about was that this is the first time I've heard about somebody being convicted using those fetus homicide laws. It will be interesting to hear if that verdict is allowed to stand or if the law is declared unconstitutional. Why? Because he was convicted of murder of his unborn child. I would think that a person would need to be a person (with human rights) in order to be murdered. Peterson could not have "murdered" a legal non-entity, which essentially is the legal status given a fetus. So, I would think that if that verdict stands and the law is not declared unconstitutional, it would provide some kind of a precedent that might be able to be used against womens' health clinics in the future, particularly those that perform late term abortions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The pro-abortion crowd had a real fit over this definition early on. To them, the unborn baby was just a "thing", and not a person -- and even though Lacy had a name picked out, it's sex was known, etc., etc., they all had a major blow-out because of those implications. The "unborn child definiton" was perceived to be a wrecking ball headed straight for the foundation of the "wall of ignorance" that they have tried to foist on the American public for so many years.
What I find interesting is ---- I am hearing less and less of an "unborn child", and more and more of "his pregnant wife". Looks like the libs are getting the "spin" (on national media), to go their way after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thank Goodness. Now they can put something else on "Court TV".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Okay HotShot aka Mark
;)-->
Go back and check out the case law on that 70s law. See how many cases were tried, and what the results were.
The murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child has finally brought to the forefront of American realization, that the number one cause of death in pregnant women is murder. There are different studies in that, but overall, on the national level, domestic violence needs to be addressed by the American public.
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And I hadn't checked out any of the case law on this. That's why I said "that I'd heard of." If there's already black letter law on the subject, I'd just wonder why NOW would be pitching a b*t*h about the charge? (See this thread)
But, shucks, "HotShot" coming from you is quite the high praise! Shucks ((blush))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Mark,
Of course NOW is using this tragedy to exploit their platform, most, if not all political organizations will.
My personal view regarding this....it is not about the rights of the unborn. This is a domestic violence case, the most extreme, ugly and heart breaking kind. The most common kind.
What is wrong with our society today? HAVEN'T THESE CRAZY MEN EVER HEARD OF DIVORCE???? Sure, it is alot more expensive financially....but.........
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hey, haven't these crazy men figured out how to keep their pants zipped (except for with their spouses)???????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! See? we can agree
:)-->
Going to bed now!
swak---
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"This is a domestic violence case, the most extreme, ugly and heart breaking kind. The most common kind."
and
"Hey, haven't these crazy men figured out how to keep their pants zipped (except for with their spouses)??????? "
Recently, a young man walked into a daycare center in the Detroit area and murdered his three year old daughter so he wouldn't be forced to pay child support.
Our country truly has gone insane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Abigail and Radar,
Re:"Recently, a young man walked into a daycare center in the Detroit area and murdered his three year old daughter so he wouldn't be forced to pay child support."
THAT'S the reason I think Scott did it. I'm hoping these kinds of psychopaths are rare but they do occur. Of course, its not PC to call them psychopaths today but one thing the men have in common is that women tend to fall all over them. And the only ones these men love are themselves.
I'm also wondering if its more than coincidence that they tend to be very good looking. Were they born this way or made by always getting their way even when very young?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Interesting point Sudo.
I Wonder if vp was a cute kid?
(I of course am in an Acts 12:14 mode over this, with hope that the conviction will stand and it can be used to prosecute abortionists.)
Kit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
they have no cause of death, they have no evidence at all.
the case was tried on circumstance ONLY.
that is what is so rare about this trial if you ask me.
the biggest hurt was his girl friend testifying he lied to her about not being married and the fact the bodies where found two miles away from where he claimed he was fishing the day of the murder. two hundred miles away from their home.
that is one heck of a chance that the body and his fishing pad was so close yet so far away from their home the jurors didnt believe that was a chance circumstance.
it is all cirsumstance you know and could be they have no evidence really. But people think he is guilty and that is why the lawyers can appeal for an unfair trial.
kit abortion is legal and has been for thirty or more years, they can never prosecute those who perform a medical procedure even if the law is overturned because at the time it was perfectly legal .
if the law changes a huge gapping IF at this point in the courts it does not seem likely, only after a NEW law in given to make it illegal can it be enforced and only to those who break that law at that time.
this wasnt an abortion it was NOT a consentual medical procedure and that may be why they can convict in the 2nd degree.. but it will be appealed interesting case.
I recently met a woman who accused her ex husband of sleeping in the same bed with his 16 year old daughter... implying sexual abuse or something ... she wanted the divorce to drag on for YEARS and YEARS to avoid paying child support.. she came up with the most outrageous accusations over and over again to keep the case in the courts and avoid paying child support.
child support is ordered here in all divorce cases..
she lost her children they will not speak to her and they are older teen girls.. As Iwas speaking to this insane woman I was shaking with fear at her screams of injustice because he makes 50 thousand a year WHY shold she have to pay anything??
I couldnt believe it , her absolute rage with giving up a very small amount of money for the children..because her ex and his new girlfriend will take it.. bitter rage and out and out insanity of jealousy has blinded her to the love of her own children. she was a top notch mom stay at home did everything right type. now she accuses her own children of abusing her and has a serious restraining order to never go near them all this in just one year and all over paying child support.
wow .
oh I think it is possible he killed for the money , in the old days parents just disappeared when it came to the mighty buck but now with computer and laws to enforce the responsibility of a parent I do fear we may see more and more of these types of situations. scary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Acts 12:14?? What do you mean by that, Kit?
--> 
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Sudo
I think the reason you may notice they are all very good looking is because they have focused on looking good.
My son is handsome no Im not just saying that he is handsome always has been, but he doesnt know it, when we speak he is as insecure about some minor flaw as the next guy. He really doesnt know he is a 'chick magnet" . He has had to many sisters to slap him once in awhile growing up or something he may be a little afraid of woman .
But these guys think they are a gift to woman , I do not think it is about the "LOOK" it is about the attitude they have towards the look they have like they are better or more deserving .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"they have no cause of death, they have no evidence at all.
the case was tried on circumstance ONLY."
I've got to take issue with that a little bit.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And it's not necessarily inferior, lesser evidence. It's just circumstantial.
To use the old shop-worn example that first-year law students all trot out,
If you go to bed at night and notice that it's a beautiful, moonlit evening and the lawn and the yard are bare and dry, and then wake up in the morning to find 2 feet of snow in the yard, you might assume that it had, in fact, snowed during the night. That's circumstantial evidence. No eyewitnesses, no meteorological surveys, just the circumstances that you're made aware of.
The evidence that I've heard in regards to the case, though all circumstantial, to me was pretty damning. I think they've made the right call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
could be George .
Do I think he did it? it doesnt matter he was convicted by his peers in the jury they are the only ones who have to think it.
it does leave the door open for endless appeals tho, because it is all about what people think about what happened.
I am eager to find out what really happened with the forman who left and why I have heard it is because he was taking so many notes 7 note books full and the replacement really didnt have the same approach and hence the agreement .
that will be another case for appeal .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
Yes I care about the pain those two families are going thru especially Sharon Rocha.
Having lost a beautiful son and grand daughter you bet I care.
:o-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
About that snow --- any gas pumps happen to be in the neighborhood?
:D-->
I agree about the "correct call". My mind was made up early on, and they should have "powered up" that chair long ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
you have the snow . they have the dead bodies.
how did the snow get there?
who killed lacie?
they have is the daming testimony on the girlfriend that he lies and his slimy phone calls while looking for his wife about being in Paris.
and the proximity of the bodies to where he was fishing .
maybe he should go to prison for stupid . two years is one LOOOONG trial tho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.