Guilty or Innocent?

Guilty or Innocent

  • Innocent

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Guilty

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Total voters
    23
QUOTE by Bells

She has only been charged with his murder. Whether she is found guilty in a court of law is another thing altogether. You might be crying 'guilty guilty guilty', but do you know why she did it?

While the article you posted states that there is no documented cases of abuse in the marriage, that could simply be because she never reported it... after all, he was a police officer and if she were to report any abuse, she would be doing so to his co-workers. So she has admitted to pulling the trigger. But is she really guilty? Only time and the trial will tell I guess. She might be guilty of pulling the trigger, but she might be found innocent of any crime due to the circumstances surrounding her pulling said trigger. Remember, this is a domestic case and nothing is ever as it seems in these types of cases...
Click to expand...

Being found guilty in court and BEING GUILTY is also different. Doesn't matter what the courts find. It matters what she is which is GUILTY. She said as much herself. Her reasons do not matter at this point. She killed her husband on purpose. :(
 
Bells said:
Guns can and do go off "just like that" and in many instances people do die or suffer serious injuries as a result.
Click to expand...

Could you post some reliable info on that topic? I've never, ever, in my whole life, heard or seen a gun fire all by itself. If ammo were to "cook-off" like that, how do you suppose they can store it on retail shelves?

But, please, give me some reliable info if you have it.

As to the rest of your post, I must agree with you. This is a situation for a court and jury to decide using valid evidence and testimony.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Could you post some reliable info on that topic? I've never, ever, in my whole life, heard or seen a gun fire all by itself. If ammo were to "cook-off" like that, how do you suppose they can store it on retail shelves?

But, please, give me some reliable info if you have it.
Click to expand...
I meant it in the sense that when guns are dropped for example. If a gun is loaded and is dropped, it can fire and can kill or cause serious injuries. As I am sure you are aware, even with the safety engaged, a knock or blow could be enough to trigger the firing mechanism of a gun can cause it to fire. And this can happen even if the trigger is not touched... for example, when the gun is dropped.

If you need some reliable information on gun safety and accidental shootings, then I am sure you are more than capable of looking it up. Guns can and do fire by themselves if dropped and the bullet can unfortunately hit another individual... as we saw with the first testimony of the wife in question, where she told the police that the gun had discharged when she dropped it.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ReighnStorm said:
Her reasons do not matter at this point. She killed her husband on purpose.
Click to expand...
So, if for example, she had been abused by her husband for years and she had finally had enough and shot him, that would not matter? If killing him were the only way she could get out alive, that would not matter to you? What if he had raped their children for example? I can tell you now, I'd have no qualms in shooting any person who sexually molested my son. And yes I would do it on purpose.

You simply do not know her motives behind the shootings. It could also be that she hated him and just wanted to be rid of him quickly... As I said to you before Reighn, this is a domestic case and until all the facts come to light (eg. her motives and the evidence in regards to those motives), you need to realise that it could go either way. She may have claimed to have shot him, but that does not guarrantee her guilt per se.
 
by Bells
So, if for example, she had been abused by her husband for years and she had finally had enough and shot him, that would not matter? If killing him were the only way she could get out alive, that would not matter to you? What if he had raped their children for example? I can tell you now, I'd have no qualms in shooting any person who sexually molested my son. And yes I would do it on purpose.
Click to expand...
As usual Bells, you're moving too far away from what I AM saying. I said she's guilty of killing her husband. That is a fact because she said as much. Why she did it does not matter to me at this point. If you do something to anyone then you should be truthful about it no matter the consequence. If self defense, then fine, but she is still guilty. You do remember what guilty means right? :) I have never stated that she was guilty in a court of law. I said that she is guilty of killing her husband.
 
ReighnStorm said:
As usual Bells, you're moving too far away from what I AM saying. I said she's guilty of killing her husband. That is a fact because she said as much. Why she did it does not matter to me at this point. If you do something to anyone then you should be truthful about it no matter the consequence. If self defense, then fine, but she is still guilty. You do remember what guilty means right? :) I have never stated that she was guilty in a court of law. I said that she is guilty of killing her husband.
Click to expand...
*Sigh*..

I swear.. my two week old has a higher level of understanding... :rolleyes:

Ok Reighn... I shall say this as simply as possible. You view her admittance or confession in the same light as her being found to be guilty (by you that is)... but in law there is a difference. She confessed and/or admitted to shooting her husband. Whether a court of law now finds her guilty is another thing altogether. The court will have to look at the circumstances leading up to the shooting and the motivating factors which resulted in hubby being shot in the head before handing down a verdict of guilty or not guilty. And by the way, if she shot her husband in self defence, and the court rules it was self defence, then no she is not guilty. Guilt is something that is established in a court of law. Her confession does not mean she is guilty per se.

Do you understand what I have been saying now?


One thing I would like to ask however. Now I do realise that you have no interest in the legalities of this case. If that is the case however, why did you start this thread in this particular forum? Why start this thread if the motivating factors behind the shootings don't interest you? Did you just want to start a thread to keep repeating the words 'guilty' over and over again? Yes she has admitted to shooting him. But again, that does not mean that she is actually guilty of a crime. If matters of self defence, for example come into play, then no she would not be guilty.
 
by Bells
I swear.. my two week old has a higher level of understanding... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You must be talking about yourself. Look at this will you please.
by Bells
You view her admittance or confession in the same light as her being found to be guilty.
but in law there is a difference.
Her confession does not mean she is guilty per se.
Whether she is found guilty in a court of law is another thing altogether.

By ReighnStorm
Being found guilty in court and BEING GUILTY is also different. Doesn't matter what the courts find. It matters what she is which is GUILTY. She said as much herself. Her reasons do not matter at this point. She killed her husband on purpose.
Click to expand...
by Bells
Guilt is something that is established in a court of law
Click to expand...
This is not true. That's just a way of determining another persons guilt because that person may be lying or not. Guilt is something you are when you are. The person with the guilt knows that they are guilty. The same with being innocent. If you are innocent then you know that you are. In court is to simply try to figure out what you already ready know in your heart and mind. This woman is guilty of shooting her husband. What the court finds is not the issue here.

One thing I would like to ask however. Now I do realise that you have no interest in the legalities of this case. If that is the case however, why did you start this thread in this particular forum? Why start this thread if the motivating factors behind the shootings don't interest you? Did you just want to start a thread to keep repeating the words 'guilty' over and over again? Yes she has admitted to shooting him. But again, that does not mean that she is actually guilty of a crime. If matters of self defence, for example come into play, then no she would not be guilty.
Click to expand...
I started this thread on this forum to determine with the evidence or story given what your opinion of her case would be. Is she lying about the accident and is in fact guilty for shooting her husband, or is she telling the truth about the accident? That's it. No hidden agendas. Never stated anything about courts or law. Just what does you gut instinct or past knowledge tell you about this case. Mine told me that she is guilty (at fault) for killing her husband and that she was lying about the accident. I WAS RIGHT! :D
 
ReighnStorm said:
Just what does you gut instinct or past knowledge tell you about this case. Mine told me that she is guilty (at fault) for killing her husband and that she was lying about the accident. I WAS RIGHT!
Click to expand...

Many people "break down" under intense interrogation ....and she was interrogated for two days. Maybe she just got tired of being unjustly accused and when they wouldn't accept her explanation, she just gave up trying? Interrogation can be pretty tough ....and isn't that what everyone is so upset about at Quantanamo?

I still don't think her confession is enough to prove her guilt of the accident. And it's also not enough for a court of law.

Baron Max
 
my psychology professor was involved in an experiment in which they took students who had volunteered to be part of an experiment, and interrogated them until they confessed to cheating (which they hadn't done).
 
dr. cello said:
my psychology professor was involved in an experiment in which they took students who had volunteered to be part of an experiment, and interrogated them until they confessed to cheating (which they hadn't done).
Click to expand...

They do that at Quantanamo prison, and many of the American people call it "torture"! And so do many other ignorant people of the world. ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Many people "break down" under intense interrogation ....and she was interrogated for two days. Maybe she just got tired of being unjustly accused and when they wouldn't accept her explanation, she just gave up trying? Interrogation can be pretty tough ....and isn't that what everyone is so upset about at Quantanamo?

I still don't think her confession is enough to prove her guilt of the accident. And it's also not enough for a court of law.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Again Baron, this is not about "guilty in the court of law". I'm talking about guilt itself. What the court finds and why they find it has no interest to me. I was only interested in her actual guilt of shooting her husband. She lied about it and I knew under the info given that she was guilty of shooting him in the head on purpose. Whether she is guilty by law is a whole nother thang. :m:
 
only, how is it you know she's guilty, since she might have simply confessed after breaking down under intense interrogation? i believe it's possible for interrogators to actually make witnesses -believe- that they did something which they did not (eg, shoot someone intentionally when it was an accident.)
 
Gee whiz people. The lady confessed at the very beginning that she shot her husband in the head. The question was did she do it on purpose or not. Not if she shot him or not. I said that she was lying about the accident. I said that she shot him on purpose. Even if it was an accident, she still shot her husband. I said is she guilty of the reason behind the shooting. Not if she shot him or not. She confessed to that in the beginning! :bugeye:
 
Hapsburg said:
Guilty. Kill the bitch.
Not like I care if her husband's dead, anyway.
Click to expand...

This is your own opinion and i respect that but as much as i hate what happened there is no need to kill her, because then there would be no kid of suffering involved. I think that she should have to sit in a jail cell the rest of her life with all the whores and hookers that are in there that way she can ponder on it for the rest of her life. The death penalty is just going to be a quick and painless way of getting rid of her. With that said i think she should rot in a jail cell for the rest of her life and she should rot in hell for the pain and suffering that she has caused everyone!!
 
southrenchich42 said:
I think that she should have to sit in a jail cell the rest of her life....
Click to expand...

While the taxpayers pay for it for the rest of her life? Why are you making the taxpayers suffer for what she did? Does that sound fair to you?

Baron Max
 
Sounds like the guy that was on a ladder trimming trees in his garden with an electric saw, and he fell and somehow the saw landed on his wifes neck (who was sunbathing) pretty much chopping her head off. He was never charged with anything I think.
 
Well, accidents actually DO happen, ya' know? But if the accidents actually happen for the "good" of someone, then we tend not to like it. I mean, if a guy hates his wife and wants a divorce, then she falls from a ladder and breaks her neck, that's a "good" thing for the husband, but it just don't "look" right, does it? ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top