Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

    daven is just as guilty as me of going off on tangents that have nothing to do wtih the topics at hands.

    For some reason my theory of thinking an able bodied adult that kills a child in cold blood is emotional? I just say its a guideline
    [/quote]

    There is no tangent and yes you are making an emotional leap in logic.

    just because Casey Anthony's Case is particularly horrible in your (our) opinion doesn't mean it needs to be treated differently, you still need to meet all the same guidelines that anyone else would.

    you are saying...if found guilty she would get the chair...but that's faulty logic...depending on what evidence is provided to prove she's guilty she could have gotten anywhere from manslaughter to Murder 1...we can't know without knowing what piece of evidence was missing...we just can't.

    you asked extremely complicated questions, then ask for yes or no answers....it can't be done, when I try to explain why, you tell me I'm going off on a tangent.
    [/quote]It's the extra stuff that get's to me with Casey. I know from a legal standpoint, they must remain impartial and look solely at the fact's, but I can't get past her getting tat's and entering a hot body contest soon after the incident. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt--maybe she was so stricken with sorrow and immature that this was the only way she knew how to deal with the tragic loss of her child?
    [/quote]

    I agree with you LT, but that's from a shooting the **** perspective with you, I obviously feel that, that is an unusual way to grieve if you can even call it that, BUT if I was on the jury you can't really take that into account....you need to stick to evidence and proof.
    [/quote]True, If I were on the jury, it would be very difficult for me to separate the two. It would haunt me after the trial.

    Comment


    • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

      [quote user="Morehead State"]


      I think she did it but I don't think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could have been accidental and then they covered that up.[/quote]
      </p>I think this is a highly likely possibility...

      so when matt does his stupid ultimatum questions.

      "But If she WAS Convicted she woulda got the death penalty right?

      which is what he asked me, I can't answer him, because if it was accidental and then she tried to cover it up...NO she wasn't, if it was premeditated and she decided she didn't want to have the kid anymore and decided to kill it...then yes..

      but since none of that was proven...we can't know anyhow.

      Comment


      • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

        [quote user="Morehead State"]

        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

        daven is just as guilty as me of going off on tangents that have nothing to do wtih the topics at hands.

        For some reason my theory of thinking an able bodied adult that kills a child in cold blood is emotional? I just say its a guideline
        [/quote]

        There is no tangent and yes you are making an emotional leap in logic.

        just because Casey Anthony's Case is particularly horrible in your (our) opinion doesn't mean it needs to be treated differently, you still need to meet all the same guidelines that anyone else would.

        you are saying...if found guilty she would get the chair...but that's faulty logic...depending on what evidence is provided to prove she's guilty she could have gotten anywhere from manslaughter to Murder 1...we can't know without knowing what piece of evidence was missing...we just can't.

        you asked extremely complicated questions, then ask for yes or no answers....it can't be done, when I try to explain why, you tell me I'm going off on a tangent.
        [/quote]It's the extra stuff that get's to me with Casey. I know from a legal standpoint, they must remain impartial and look solely at the fact's, but I can't get past her getting tat's and entering a hot body contest soon after the incident. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt--maybe she was so stricken with sorrow and immature that this was the only way she knew how to deal with the tragic loss of her child?
        [/quote]

        I agree with you LT, but that's from a shooting the **** perspective with you, I obviously feel that, that is an unusual way to grieve if you can even call it that, BUT if I was on the jury you can't really take that into account....you need to stick to evidence and proof.
        [/quote]

        i feel like if they had the evidence to convict her, there was enough supporting and circumstancial to get it to murder one from what we know. Had she got murder one and then add in the fact a baby was the victim - i think that person whould get the chair. WHOEVER it is. Again CA was just the example at hand
        [/quote]</p>


        I think she did it but I don't think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could have been accidental and then they covered that up.</p>


        The prosecution did not prove otherwise. Its not about what we think happened. Its about whether or not the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>[/quote]

        We were talking about if she had been found guilty. THey tried to prove her guilty JUST because of her lies to the cops, the witnesses that smelled the body, the way they covered up the body, the way she acted - I think they would of had motive that she didn't want the responsibility. They almost convicted her alone on these facts.

        I agree they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but we were speaking hypothetically

        Either way bottom line i stand behind the sole fact of what daven tries to argue: I am for the death penalty and any adult found guilty of murder in the 1st of killing a minor should be put to death
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

        Comment


        • Re: THEE GAME IS vs THE BUFFALO BILLS ON OCT 16th!

          [quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"]


          <FONT face=Arial>Morehead State</FONT> </P>


          What are your thoughts on having to replace Theo Epstein and Terry Francona?</P>


          [/quote]</P>


          As long as we get another solid starter and a right handed hitting outfielder.</P>


          [/quote]</P>


          Is this you trying to be funny?</P>


          [/quote]</P>


          I don't get it. We really do need a starter and a right hand hitting outfielder. Oh and if we can somehow get back Handley Ramirez, I'm good with that too.</P>


          [/quote]</P>


          My initial question was about losing Theo and Terry Francona. </P>


          And you give me you guys need a pitcher and a right handed outfielder? </P>


          The Red Sox need more then a pitcher and a hitter. They need a pulse, cause that team flatlined in September. </P>


          </P>


          [/quote]</P>


          Tito was a great manager. Will probably go down as the greatest in Sox history. But he didn't want to stay. Managers in baseball are not near as important as HC's in football or even basketball. There is no scheme to implement. Its more about managing personalities, lineups and pitching staffs.</P>


          Most of that is baseball 101 stuff. Any new manager will probably be fine. And I'm not a huge believer in the "genius" of Theo. Give him half the payroll and see if he can win. He's had some questionable signings recently.</P>


          In other words, the Sox will be fine because its the player who lost it. Especially Lester and Beckett.</P>
          Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

          Comment


          • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

            [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]it started talking about the death penalty[/quote]

            He started talking about who should and shouldn't get the death penalty...and that it should be based upon his whims...not a stringent system.

            [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]He basically said all murder is the same.[/quote]

            I didn't say anything remotely resembling this remark, I did however provide him the definitions of Murder 1 and Murder 2 to show HIM the difference...since he doesn't understand it.



            [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]I then made the comment that they are obviously different because had the jury been able to convict Casey Anthony as the killer, with all of the other evidence they would of been able to get murder one. Dr. K was charged wtih murder two. Daven doesn't see the difference[/quote]

            Doesn't see the difference? It was brought up for a distinct purpose, after I showed you that "premeditation" is the distinguishing feature between Murder 1 and Murder 2 I mentioned that Dr.K. really should have been considered a murder 1 case by the book because he clearly had premeditated his murders....you completely ignored my point and went on to talk about how he was charged with Murder 2.....that's irreverent though, my point was that his Murders "fit" the description of Murder 1 (which I provided for you) and by YOUR black and white idea for the system he would have to be sent to the chair (which I knew you didn't agree with) it was pretty much brought up to show you how bad your system was....but you ignored the whole point.

            [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Also Daven accuses me of being a emotional because I feel anybody guilty of killing a child should get the chair. [/quote]

            You are an emotional thinker, you do not think things through completely and you take things one at a time and make snap judgements on them....that's just how you are..it's not always a bad thing.
            [/quote]

            1) again that was u just jumping to conclusions and being an *******. Thats why I went back and bumped. AGAIN - ANYBODY FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER 1 OF A CHILD SHOULD GET THE CHAIR.

            2) I already Bumped when u said all murder is the same. Hell your general comparison of Dr. K to CA basically proves that.

            3) You brought up something that WASNT murder, but assisted suicide. He didn't do the murdering though. IF you take my care and kill yourself, should I be considered a murderer?

            4) Again - if u disagree with anybody found guilty of Murder 1 of a child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law well then thats your opinion. Go to jail being a rapist or doing something to a child, your the scumbags scumbag. I don't hink that illogical, i think its spot on. The difference here is u don't believe in the death penalty and i do.


            https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

            Comment


            • Re: THEE GAME IS vs THE BUFFALO BILLS ON OCT 16th!

              [quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"]


              <font face="Arial">Morehead State</font> </p>


              What are your thoughts on having to replace Theo Epstein and Terry Francona?</p>


              [/quote]</p>


              As long as we get another solid starter and a right handed hitting outfielder.</p>


              [/quote]</p>


              Is this you trying to be funny?</p>


              [/quote]</p>


              I don't get it. We really do need a starter and a right hand hitting outfielder. Oh and if we can somehow get back Handley Ramirez, I'm good with that too.</p>


              [/quote]</p>


              My initial question was about losing Theo and Terry Francona. </p>


              And you give me you guys need a pitcher and a right handed outfielder? </p>


              The Red Sox need more then a pitcher and a hitter. They need a pulse, cause that team flatlined in September. </p>


              </p>


              [/quote]</p>


              Tito was a great manager. Will probably go down as the greatest in Sox history. But he didn't want to stay. Managers in baseball are not near as important as HC's in football or even basketball. There is no scheme to implement. Its more about managing personalities, lineups and pitching staffs.</p>


              Most of that is baseball 101 stuff. Any new manager will probably be fine. And I'm not a huge believer in the "genius" of Theo. Give him half the payroll and see if he can win. He's had some questionable signings recently.</p>


              In other words, the Sox will be fine because its the player who lost it. Especially Lester and Beckett.</p>[/quote]

              like Crawford?
              https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

              Comment


              • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="Morehead State"]


                I think she did it but I don't think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could have been accidental and then they covered that up.[/quote]
                </p>I think this is a highly likely possibility...

                so when matt does his stupid ultimatum questions.

                "But If she WAS Convicted she woulda got the death penalty right?

                which is what he asked me, I can't answer him, because if it was accidental and then she tried to cover it up...NO she wasn't, if it was premeditated and she decided she didn't want to have the kid anymore and decided to kill it...then yes..

                but since none of that was proven...we can't know anyhow.
                [/quote]

                lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
                https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                Comment


                • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

                  If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font size="6" color="#0000FF">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

                  No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

                  No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


                  My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

                  No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


                  [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

                  I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.



                  Comment


                  • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

                    lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
                    [/quote]

                    The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.

                    Comment


                    • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                      [quote user="lttaylor56"]True, If I were on the jury, it would be very difficult for me to separate the two. It would haunt me after the trial.
                      [/quote]

                      I certainly do not envy the jury of that case...I would literally be distraught, I would WANT to convict her...but my inability to deviate from what is required of you as a Jury would not have let me.

                      Comment


                      • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                        [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

                        If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

                        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font color="#0000ff" size="6">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

                        No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

                        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

                        No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

                        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


                        My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


                        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

                        No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


                        [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

                        I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.



                        [/quote]

                        daven had they put the gun in her hand - her plea was that she was innocent NOT that it was accidental. NO SHOT they would of got accidental after all of her lies, pleas, and the way she acted.

                        So HAD they found out she had did it, they would of had enough to not give her Murder 2 is the point im making. They would of went to the extent of the law.
                        https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                        Comment


                        • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                          [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

                          If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

                          [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font color="#0000ff" size="6">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

                          No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

                          [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

                          No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

                          [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


                          My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


                          [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

                          No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


                          [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

                          I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.



                          [/quote]

                          daven had they put the gun in her hand - her plea was that she was innocent NOT that it was accidental. NO SHOT they would of got accidental after all of her lies, pleas, and the way she acted.

                          So HAD they found out she had did it, they would of had enough to not give her Murder 2 is the point im making. They would of went to the extent of the law.
                          https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                          Comment


                          • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                            [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

                            lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
                            [/quote]

                            The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
                            [/quote]

                            again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

                            He actually didn't kill anybody
                            https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                            Comment


                            • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                              [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

                              lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
                              [/quote]

                              The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
                              [/quote]

                              again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

                              He actually didn't kill anybody
                              https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                              Comment


                              • Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

                                [quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

                                lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
                                [/quote]

                                The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
                                [/quote]

                                again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

                                He actually didn't kill anybody
                                https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X