Guilty or Innocent?

[Baron Max]

Uh, I own quite a few guns, thank-you-very-much.

And yet, not even knowing the type of gun in the story, you still thought the hammer had to be cocked in order to fire???? ....LOL!!! Yeah, sure!

Your entire previous, speculative post was based on that faulty, eroneous information, yet you still try to defend it? ...LOL! Hell, that's even funnier than the original post. ...LOL!

...it's nice to see you didn't put much speculative thought into this incident rather than just resorting to the same ol' unconstructive criticisms towards others posts.

Speculation is nothing more than fools trying to make themselves seem intelligent and knowledgeable when they aren't. Sorta' like all the "talking heads" on the news shows!

Baron Max

 

[Cottontop3000]

Barren, you wouldn't know a .50 cal sniper rifle if it hit you in the ass; especially since your old fat ass would be running away from it.

 

[Baron Max]

Barren, you wouldn't know a .50 cal sniper rifle if it hit you in the ass...

Oh, shit ...wait a minute! Ya' mean that woman shot her husband with a damned .50 caliber sniper rifle??????? Shit, no wonder the specualtion is so high! ...LOL! She was carrying the .50 cal sniper rifle and slipped on a book? Ahh, no wonder it's so hard to figure out. ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[Cottontop3000]

Yeah, your racist points of view are so fucking LOL! Why don't you get out more and see that racists are a dying breed? Ha ha. So fucking lol.

 

[Neildo]

And yet, not even knowing the type of gun in the story, you still thought the hammer had to be cocked in order to fire???? ....LOL!!! Yeah, sure!

Your entire previous, speculative post was based on that faulty, eroneous information, yet you still try to defend it? ...LOL! Hell, that's even funnier than the original post. ...LOL!

Uh, what? Wow, you're being a total idiot.

Where exactly did I say the gun HAD to be cocked to fire? A gun CAN easily accidentally go off when the hammer is already cocked. It can get snagged on clothing or some other object or somehow like an idiot the person cocked it and left it that way so when the person slips or drops it, it can easily be set off. There's been many times when the hammer has caught onto something and when someone tosses their gun on the table, it goes off.

As I said, I was trying to think of many various ways of how various types of handguns could have accidentally gone off. There's not many ways it could have. Either the person pulled the trigger without the safety being on, the person turned the safety off and then pulled the trigger, or the hammer was already precocked and it accidentally went off. In the first two examples, the wife shouldn't have had her finger on the trigger in the first place when handing her husband the gun, that's the 2nd most basic safety tip aside from never pointing a gun at someone treating all guns as if they were loaded. And in the case of the hammer being cocked, that could easily be an accident, but again, there was no mention as to what type of gun her husband used so it could be one that doesn't have a trigger one or a very small one that is accident proof so that kind of rules that out. And if so, why wasn't the hammer safety on also?

Are there any examples that YOU can think of how the gun could have accidentally gone off to prove the wife's innocence or do you lack simple critical thinking where you must resort to making up stupid false arguments like saying someone doesn't know anything about guns? Gee, I wonder what stupid retort you're gonna make next.

Speculation is nothing more than fools trying to make themselves seem intelligent and knowledgeable when they aren't. Sorta' like all the "talking heads" on the news shows!

Uh, isn't that the whole point of creating discussions about various subjects? Is not this topic about if we personally find this lady guilty or innocent? If you don't wanna speculate, you're in the wrong thread, troll.

- N

 

[ReighnStorm]

QUOTE by dr. cello
is created by man.

Man has not, could not nor will ever truly create anything. It was already here before man. Everything was. To be exact, I said "no true meaning"

by dr. weirdo
you believe that your mindless scepticism is cool

And you don't? Do I truly care what you think? :bugeye:

by dr. fake
the name .....it is without meaning.

I already told you that!

by dr. ignoramous
stop being a pretentious git and take one more step on the road to being a useful human being.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......you talk way too much for one liners. NO human being is useful. In the way maybe....but never useful....idiot.

dr. somebody snobbish
the people have power, yes. and they have surrendered it. they do not, speaking practically, have power anymore. they listen to the media because it does their thinking for them. the people wilfully submit to slavery and surrender their power.

Not the people......some people....you can't nor should you speak for all people...Maybe you should say the majority of people.

by dr. pepper
i don't think you understand me, but that's okay

I don't think you understand yourself.....BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...isn't that just annoying!

by dr. nogood
people like conflict, problems, controversy. the media, therefore, likes conflict, problems, controversy.

Again, some people or majority. Not people. :bugeye:

BLACK like Rain

 

[Baron Max]

Are there any examples that YOU can think of how the gun could have accidentally gone off to prove the wife's innocence ...

I know this might be a struggle for you, but in the USA, a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law! And in no case, in no court, is idle specualation to be taken into account.

Is not this topic about if we personally find this lady guilty or innocent?

In my opinion, no thread of this nature, the innocence or guilt of a person, should be permitted on this forum! I daresay that none of us has all of the evidence nor expertise to even speculate on it, let alone have heated, angry arguments!

And you keep talking about "hammers" ....some guns don't even have hammers! And notice that if the gun in question does NOT have a hammer, then most of your post is moot.

I suggest that we leave the question of guilt or innocence to people who have the evidence AND the expertise to figure it out. Then, if neccesary, a court and a jury to decide the case.

Baron Max

 

[dr. cello]

Words created by man holds no true meaning.

Man has not, could not nor will ever truly create anything.

the rest of your post contains so little intelligent thought and so many out of context quotes and ad hominem attacks that i am not going to dignify it with a response. you have firmly demonstrated your lack of intellect, however, and i thank you for it.

max: i agree that the discussion of guilt or innocence based on the evidence given is folly. it's largely inevitable, unfortunately--all praise be to the wide availability of news, we find ourselves faced with countless people who believe that they have to formulate an opinion on everything that happens. sometimes that opinion gets stupid.

you're quite correct in noting that you have to prove guilt rather than innocence, otherwise we'd all be in trouble.

 

[Neildo]

I know this might be a struggle for you, but in the USA, a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law! And in no case, in no court, is idle specualation to be taken into account.

Yes, but these forums aren't the court who's trying her. It's nothing new or out of the ordinary for people to gossip or discussion various issues. So someone finds her innocent or guilty before being tried in the courts, big whoop. Like our opinions are gonna interfere with her trial.

And you keep talking about "hammers" ....some guns don't even have hammers! And notice that if the gun in question does NOT have a hammer, then most of your post is moot

Which part of "since there is no mention of the gun that is used, I'm trying to think of various ways various types of guns could have gone off" do you not understand? If the unknown gun doesn't have a hammer then, *DUH*, it won't apply to her, then we can continue to check off the other possibilites of how the gun could have gone off until we find out the most likely reason.

And my follow-up talk of "hammers" was only to clarify what I meant in regards to your silly comment towards me. In my original post, I only mentioned one example talking about the hammer of the gun because that's only one of two ways the gun could have fired. Even if dropped, a gun won't go off, unless it's dropped with the hammer cocked. I only made one mention of the hammer in my original post so you're the one with the hard-on about it, reread it or something.

Just how does a gun go off and with high odds, hit him in the head? How was she handing him the gun? Did the gun have the hammer already cocked so when we slipped, it easily went off? If so, what the hell was it doing cocked? - me

If not cocked, was she handing him the gun with the grip held and her finger on the trigger so she accidentally pulled it while slipping? And also if so, why the hell wasn't the safety on as well? - me

The first example is of how the gun could have gone off by the hammer being precocked (or in my follow-up post, it getting snagged on clothing or something). The second example is her gripping the gun with her finger on the trigger which is a no-no. Those are the only two possible ways of how the gun could have discharged a bullet. And in both I wonder why the safeties weren't on so there's a couple problems with the whole incident:

1) The safeties weren't on.
2) She was holding the gun with her finger on the trigger.
3) Her finger wasn't on the trigger but the hammer was instead precocked, if the gun model has a hammer.

Number one is a case of negligence on both their parts. The hubby left the safety off and she didn't bother to see if it was on when she grabbed the gun to hand to her husband. Otherwise the safety was on and she turned it off which would be negligence on her part again, but even worse, she turned it off and intentionally shot him.

Number two is a case of negligence on her part for holding a gun with her finger on the trigger. It's wrong to hold even an empty gun like that, let alone hold it that way when handing it to someone, loaded or not. And if her finger wasn't on the trigger when handing him the gun, a finger could have accidentally slipped through the trigger guard and pulled the trigger as she made a tighter grip when falling, but still, why wasn't the safety on?

Number three, this is a case of negligence with either the husband for not lowering the hammer and leaving it cocked for some strange reason but also her due to not giving a quick glance at the gun to see if the hammer was accidentally cocked. Both the safety and hammer should always be checked before or once the gun is in hand. The only other explanation would be that the hammer got snagged on something which cocked it involuntarily so when she fell, the gun easily went off even if her finger wasn't even on the trigger. However, the problem still remains of the hammer safety not being on if one exists so that would still be negligence.

No matter if she's innocent or not, she will still most likely be found guilty of negligence because there is no other way for a bullet to have gone off. Let's just hope she didn't intentionally shoot her husband or else she's screwed.

And again, as a disclaimer, we are not the court, but we can still discuss the issue. So I find her guilty, in my opinion, without knowing all the facts. If you don't wanna discuss if she's guilty or not, then read the rest of what I wrote and discuss those other parts. Can you think of any other examples of how the gun could have accidentally gone off to show how she COULD be innocent or guilty, or if there's anything wrong with my examples of how it could have gone off?

- N

 

[ReighnStorm]

QUOTE by dr. cellothe rest of your post contains so little intelligent thought

You mean you had to respond to me to realise that it was unintelligent. That was the purpose you idi^%$T! You started it by asking a dumb question! Please stay on topic. Guilty or innocent? That's the topic of conversation. Not what words someone uses to express themselves! :bugeye:

 

[ReighnStorm]

QUOTE by Baron Max
I know this might be a struggle for you, but in the USA, a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law! And in no case, in no court, is idle specualation to be taken into account.

Baron Max, in the USA people have been, in the past, put in jail and prison simply on speculation. Dare you ask why?????

by Baron Max
In my opinion, no thread of this nature, the innocence or guilt of a person, should be permitted on this forum!

So banning this issue on this forum is far more important to you than banning issues on racist posts? Hmm?

by Baron Max
I suggest that we leave the question of guilt or innocence to people who have the evidence AND the expertise to figure it out.

In my opinion Baron, people have every right to question the guilt or innocence of anyone put into the position of being asked. These kind of laws were formed by people, for people. People decided on what is acceptable proof and what is not. You have every right to discuss your opinions. Especially on forums.

 

[dr. cello]

You mean you had to respond to me to realise that it was unintelligent. That was the purpose you idi^%$T! You started it by asking a dumb question! Please stay on topic. Guilty or innocent? That's the topic of conversation. Not what words someone uses to express themselves! :bugeye:

being a complete fuckwit is not an ideal way to keep someone on topic. it invites ridicule of their absurd beliefs and mindless statements. keep that in mind in the future. but then, i can tell you lack the wit to keep anything in mind, so please disregard.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max, in the USA people have been, in the past, put in jail and prison simply on speculation.

Not any more!! That's illegal as hell in the USA.

So banning this issue on this forum is far more important to you than banning issues on racist posts? Hmm?

No, I think that should be banned, too! The difference, of course, is that with racial posts, there IS some interesting EVIDENCE of some of the situations. Like the high violent crime rates of blacks ...that's not speculation, it's factual and is proven. From that point, people begin to argue about "justifying" that high violent crime rate ..and that's SPECULATION ...which should be banned!

In my opinion Baron, people have every right to question the guilt or innocence of anyone ....

I agree ....BUT NOT WITHOUT ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE!! That's what I object to, not the discussion of guilt or innocence, but we should be talking about EVIDENCE, not speculating that the wife might have been upset and shot the bastard! Shit .....what good is that kind of thread??

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

Ban, ban, ban!! Veto, veto, veto!!

Yep, we can see you're a Bush supporter, Max.

Sieg heil, Baron!

- N

 

[Baron Max]

Yep, we can see you're a Bush supporter, Max.

I support the government "..of the people, by the people and for the people, ..." The American people voted for their government officials, President Bush included. I might not like some of the things that are done, but it's the voice of the citizens of the United States of America ....it's what I believe in strongly. (Perhaps .....we get what we deserve??)

Baron Max

 

[devils_reject]

Carrying a pointed and aimed gun by mistake, and then mistakenly slipping, and then mistakenly firing. But she might have been hoping on teasing her husband. There was a simliar case in Texas about a popular female mexicali music artist who was killed in the same way by her maid. The maid finally confessed she did it.

 

[Baron Max]

Carrying a pointed and aimed gun by mistake, and then mistakenly slipping, and then mistakenly firing. But she might have been hoping on teasing her husband. There was a simliar case in Texas about a popular female mexicali music artist who was killed in the same way by her maid. The maid finally confessed she did it.

What???? Where did you hear that crap?? That singer was murdered with forethought and planning ...there was no bullshit about it being an accident! It was done, I believe, right in front of or in a hotel. The woman was NOT a maid, but was a friend and manager or something of the singer.

I repeat: Where did you get that "information"?

Baron Max

 

[devils_reject]

I can't really remember the story precisely but Once the maid/manager claimed some sort of accident of similar nature. On TV.

 

[dr. cello]

the point is that there are reasons for gun safety, and there are those who do not follow gun safety rules for whatever reason. this could be one of those situations.

besides, everyone knows that one in a million chances always crop up. stands to reason--otherwise what would the point be? (cf. guards! guards!, terry pratchett)

 

[Roman]

I think this is all idle speculation. I'd rather let a murdering housewife go then ruin an innocent mother's life, and her three children.

Besides, it's innocence until proven guilty. Otherwise, everyone's guilty for anything anyone wants to put on you. Which just doesn't sound very fun.

On this media stuff, dr. cello has a point. The news media has yet to became an insidious tool that purposefully controls public thought.

And I think I know why. It's privately owned and in competition with other news medias. Therefore, public opinion and interest decide what's shown on TV. Public opinion is controlled by several things, of course.

There's the immense liberalization of the public– sympathy for the innocent and a great sense of humanity for everyone. Sob stories sell. Starving kids sell. There's the current patriotism which prohibits, to an extent, stuff that's critical of the administration, of course. Then there's stuff we're scared of. Terrorists blowing up bridges. Killer bees. Mad cow. Serial killers. and the stuff we're interested in, like which celebrity's pregnant.

So while the media has control over the content of what they show us, they are legally not allowed to be a monopoly that control everything we see and hear (gov't antitrust laws), and competitively cannot afford to show us whatever they want to. A great deal of what they show us is what we ask for. In a democracy such as ours, we have mostly ourselves to blame.