Trump..... (The Sophistry Thread)

Argue in a robust manner, you'll get some robust responses. No need to get angry.


Anyway...

Alabama Code Title 13A - Criminal Code said:
(2) HOMICIDE.  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.
Click to expand...

I do not see Marshae as unambiguously guilty under that law.

She may be unambiguously guilty of starting the fight, but it does not automatically follow that she is therefore unambiguously guilty of the death of her child.

I also do not agree that the other party would have definitely dispensed the same level of violence in defending herself regardless of the tools available. It's quite possible that if she'd had no weapons that the child would have lived. Five bullets, even if they are as ineffective as described in an earlier post, are still more likely to inflict serious injury than five punches.

So I also dispute that the gun is largely irrelevant in the outcome.
 
Zaf said:
EDIT: I have discarded the previous post in full and made it more respectful.
I hope this states the case quite clearly, and I apologise for the tone and content of the reply prior to this edit if it was seen or preserved in quotations after this point. It was not coming from a good place, and did not further the discussion.


You need to show me exactly where you think I've side stepped, so I can answer that as part of the dialogue.
I believe the misunderstanding has come from us commenting on different aspects of the law and from different perspectives and levels of knowledge with how it works, which is leading to you thinking I have made assertions that I do not believe I have.

The only reason she is not guilty is because of an assumption of innocence.
The District Attorney can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to try a case or not, but this can also be overturned as part of Judicial Review. We saw this exact process with the Zimmerman trial, where the original DA felt it was a clear self defence shooting and was not going to ever take it to trial. There are also a multitude of reasons for a DA to choose not to try a case, especially one criminal in nature and the burden of evidence required to secure a conviction. You can be guilty of a crime, but the evidence is not enough to prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so no prosecution will ever occur.

Jones was criminally negligent and it is entirely her fault her child is now dead. Jemison was attacked without provocation, she followed her duty to retreat and deescalate, and when she could retreat no further, responded by defending herself. If it were not for the actions of Jones instigating and then pressing the attack, none of this would have come to pass. The issued indictment is completely in line with the the criminal code of the district.
The law is not unclear on this, your opinion of what is just might be.

I do not believe I have made a statement on what I think is just

I have explained quite clearly why the case was interesting from a constitutional point of view. I might also add that the DA not choosing to prosecute doesn't make that law any less in violation of the Constitutional precedent that has already been set...you can read my previous posts for more information on that.
Click to expand...

Well now I do feel like I missed something. I love a good @Zaf tantrum. So few can deliver with even a shadow of such vigour.

I don't need to show you anything. You can review your own posts and see it quite clearly. Though perhaps you can't, it does often appear in your repertoire to view broadly. But yesterday you repeatedly asserted that only one view was true and accurate (that which you held with apparent special wisdom not available to the rest of us). Today that's different...but apparently what always was. Like a cliche of maga.

You've done it again in this (edited) post.
 
Zaf said:
It shouldn't be hard, it was bolded out to make it really easy for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the formatting and for being patronising about it.

However she is still not unambiguously guilty of the charges.
 
Shit! Edited again before I got to see it. I am disappointed, more in my mobile provider than @Zaf. Their coverage is really patchy some times.

I see someone did spell it out for you in really simple English, without being patronising I might add, and still is apparently wrong. You've got a special case of being cock eyed on this @Zaf. I know how it feels to be so damn sure I'm right and nobody understands, it is quite frustrating.
 
Shit! Edited again before I got to see it. I am disappointed, more in my mobile provider than @Zaf. Their coverage is really patchy some times.

I see someone did spell it out for you in really simple English, without being patronising I might add, and still is apparently wrong. You've got a special case of being cock eyed on this @Zaf. I know how it feels to be so damn sure I'm right and nobody understands, it is quite frustrating.
 
Zaf said:
And it was easier to write that than just copy paste this eloquent and well reasoned argument? Go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

If you didn't read it the first time, why would you read it the second time? It doesn't align with your position, so it should be disregarded and derided as foolishness. It's an amazing gift @Zaf, are you able to teach it?
 
Zaf said:
Do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ALL YOURS POSTS READ?! You are at such levels of arrogance you don't even feel the need to justify your opinions, you state them as so plainly evident they need no justification whatsoever. You arrogant fucking cunts, you can't even provide examples (when asked) of indescrecions you're so happy to point out in the first place.
Click to expand...

Dude WTF.

I was arguing that your interpretation of the law you posted was incorrect, I didn’t need to re-quote it to make my point.

We can do without the personal comments.
 
Tubbsy said:
Dude WTF.

I was arguing that your interpretation of the law you posted was incorrect, I didn’t need to re-quote it to make my point.

We can do without the personal comments.
Click to expand...

I think @Zaf has earnt the right after patiently dealing with us dullards...
 
Zaf said:
There you go poodle, there's your Zaf rant, I hope you're all really fucking proud of yourselves.
Click to expand...

Somewhat bemused I think is a better term...

I think i get your point - you're saying the law can be interpreted to charge her or let her go, depending on the mood of the prosecutor? So both outcomes are "technically" legally correct?

Either way, I think that she was charged is fucked up. I also dont discount the gun, but then again I'm a lefty snowflake who thinks no one has a "right" to carry around a lethal fucking weapon (with apologies to Mel Gibson..).
 
Have to say, I agree with Zaf. The woman started a fight, was a nasty little bitch with no regard to her unborn child. She endangered someone to the extent that they felt the need to use a gun to protect themselves. Because of her felonious aggression she caused the death of her unborn child, a completely different human.
If someone got in an argument with her, kicked her in the stomach, killed the baby, well I guess you would all think it was a fair police charge. I don't find it unreasonable to see her in the same light.
All drunk drivers that kill people should be charged with murder as well, no manslaughter or culpable driving
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaf
Zaf said:
No, you cherry picked part of my quote at the expense of the part that gave context to the law that justified her indictment. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, it's even worse when someone has expressly drawn the relevant section to your attention and you still fail to take notice of it.


No, the law was quite clear which is why the Grand Jury issued the indictment as part of Jemison's sentence. Likewise, the law is quite clear on prosecutorial discretion. They are CHOOSING not to try the case because of extenuating circumstances, that is very different from the indictment being invalid because of incorrect interpretation of the law. The article you guys linked even has the DA saying that the Grand Jury was NOT INCORRECT IN ISSUING THE INDICTMENT. Do you even follow your own sources?! Jesus christ.
Click to expand...

Ok... That was a genuinely conciliatory response, sorry I misunderstood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top