Guest Spyder550 Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 ... discuss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 graemlins/thumb.gif Fuck that guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spyder550 Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mensan: graemlins/thumb.gif Fuck that guy.+1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Agreed. Drown that fucker in 140* water... -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony_K Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 SQUEEEL!!! EEEEEEEE! SQUEEEEL LIKE A PIG! EEEEEEE!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 who really cares, i haven't followed this case at all, i really haven't followed any type of these cases where they hype it all up, there is enough crime cases in the world to worry about this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 No way he will get the death penalty, it is in California after all, some human rights hippie will say that it is unfair for him to die. Never mind the fact he murdered his pregnant wife for no apparent reason other than he did not want the kid, or wanted to run off and bang his girlfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex1647545498 Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 I have reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bgbdbn Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Why are they waiting until Feb. 25 to formally sentense him? If they are going to sentence him just do it and get it over with instead of drag it out that much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Whenever a human lie is on the line, you should always take time to deliberate. If you end up being wrong about something, you can't take it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Sign Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. 2: I have reasonable doubt.The prosecution did not do enough to prove he is guilty. Jurors were influenced heavily. All of that aside, I would bet he did do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 I've been meaning to ask. Why is it that this case became so big? I mean, how many people are murdered in this world? Why is this case so special, that it deserves all of this media attention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorback Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 It's not so much that it "deserves" the attention, but just because it was such a big deal a couple years ago when Laci went missing on X-Mas eve (kinda hard for a family at that time of the year for their pregnant daughter to all of a sudden be just "gone" on X-Mas eve) and Scott denied knowing anything about it, so it was something that stuck with people when it came out months later the had a ton of money in cash on him, was attemping to drive to Mexico and then the transcripts of his conversations w/ that g/f came out -- so basically people are just more informed on the case because they've been hearing about it for a while -- it's almost been like a conspiracy. Just my take on why it's grabbed so much media attention. Fry him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by AustinL911: I've been meaning to ask. Why is it that this case became so big? I mean, how many people are murdered in this world? Why is this case so special, that it deserves all of this media attention? Because the family is rich, just like the Ramsey's and all of the other families we hear about. They don't show poor people or minorities unless they are the ones doing something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mensan: Because the family is rich, just like the Ramsey's and all of the other families we hear about. They don't show poor people or minorities unless they are the ones doing something wrong.i was going to say this but i didn't know if they were rich or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest infamous me 235 Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 I just saw this on Yahoo! main page Now.... Should he be sentenced for the murder of 2 human lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGRE Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 He won't be executed, as mentioned before, it's California. I actually found it amusing that they thought sentancing him to life in Prison or life on death row was news. The only difference is weather he has a room mate or not. Shit, Charles Manson is still alive!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95probegt Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 kill the fucker....it probably won't happen but that guy is fucked up... i say they tie him down and let people give him paper cuts with manilla folders until he bleeds to death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Advocate Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Shouyldnt get the death penalty unless they have hard evidence. All they have is circumstancial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony_K Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 The reason this case is so big is because the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("The Laci Peterson Law") was created and passed just because of this case, that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with double murder. The significance is that it is THE FIRST LAW IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT RECOGNIZES A FETUS AS A HUMAN LIFE. You can't be charged for murder if you didn't kill anyone. Our country now has a double standard: A mother is freely allowed to kill her unborn child (there is an exception for abortion written in the law), but anyone else who kills her unborn child is committing murder. Something like 90% of attacks on pregnant women are by the father in an attempt to kill the unborn child. This law is bringing to the surface some of the ugly inconsistencies of our society that liberals would rather continue to ignore. They are torn between 1) protection of women and the concerns of feminists who work to end violence against women and who recognize the devastation of an expecting mother who loses her child, and 2) their support for rampant abortion. This law is basically forcing our leaders, activists, lobbyists, and other concerned citizens to look Roe v. Wade in the eye, and liberals don't want to. From a pro-life point of view, it can be summed up as "bwahahaha, sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it, too." From a pro-abortion point of view, it forces one to at least admit that abortion is not as black-and-white as a single supreme court decision has made it to this point. If you've read this far without your head hurting or thoughts drifting to clear tail lights and angst-ladden music videos, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/john-kerry-laci-peterson.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony_K Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 By the way, I say let Mr. Peterson live, if you didn't understand my "squeeeel" comment... The only time I think it is permissible to kill another human being is in self-defense when your life is threatened, defending someone else whose life is threatened, or in combat that clearly meets the criteria of the Just War Theory. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let him spend his life behind bars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spyder550 Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Originally posted by Tony: By the way, I say let Mr. Peterson live, if you didn't understand my "squeeeel" comment... The only time I think it is permissible to kill another human being is in self-defense when your life is threatened, defending someone else whose life is threatened, or in combat that clearly meets the criteria of the Just War Theory. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let him spend his life behind bars. So you think it is wrong for the state to carry out the actions that Mrs. Peterson was unable to becuase she couldn't fend off her assailant? Seems justifiable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck531 Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Give him life. Have some dude named "bubba" in his cell toss his salad and then off him in the prison. Done. Death penalty right there. Next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony_K Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Originally posted by Spyder550: So you think it is wrong for the state to carry out the actions that Mrs. Peterson was unable to becuase she couldn't fend off her assailant? Seems justifiable to me. The objective of self-defense is not to kill your attacker. The objective of self-defense is to defend your self. Hence the name. The ideal is to subue your attacker and not kill him; but if he is trying to kill you and you kill him in self-defense, you are not to blame. Self-defense is only in the moment. Self-defense does not entitle retribution at any moment beyond an incident of attack --not from the victim and not from the state. If someone beats the living hell out of you and you live, does that give you the right to go and beat the living hell out of him at a later date? No - not legally, not ethically, and not morally by any standards anywhere. And for states that enact the death penalty, the purpose of it is not to "carry out the actions [the victim] was unable to". None of this should need to be said. I can't believe you actually posted the reply above. I'm going to assume you are more intelligent than your reply and that you just said that in an attempt to spur discussion on the topic. For anyone who is getting angry reading this and about to start typing obscenities in a fit of rage, shut up and consider joining the society that created and maintains the safe environment that enables you to live as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Originally posted by Tony: For anyone who is getting angry reading this and about to start typing obscenities in a fit of rage, shut up and consider joining the society that created and maintains the safe environment that enables you to live as you do. Exactly. Just like Laci did. The Catholics are right, there should never be a crime punishable by death. Except heresy. Oh, and the idea of a spherical Earth. Or a heliocentric universe. Or being a Muslim, pagan, or excommunicated during the crusades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.