Replies

Hey Dusty, let us examine one other very popular criminal case ((I say popular because it is with the stupid masses of America, not the intellectual type)). Scott Peterson! There was never a smoking gun evidence, or eye witness in the Peterson case, however the court sentenced him to death NOT LIFE IN PRSON! Obviously that is a mistake, I don't see you or the rest of the born again all lathered up in defense of killing that man? What if he was innocent? I know that the SOB was having an affair, but there is a difference between having an affair, and killing your wife. I do understand that there are many circumstantial evidences regarding his fishing boat and locations, and I want to also add that he may be guilty, but FROM THE CURRENT EVIDENSES HE IS NOT beyond the reasonable doubts GUILTY.

So again, criminal cases are in courts all the time, many are judged by stupid judges, but for this country to go nuts over one case is very stupid, to say the least. The only reason this one case had lots of ink is because it was backed by the Evangelical blow hards, who don't know Christ if he hit them in a$$.

The only reason this one case had lots of ink is because it was backed by the Evangelical blow hards, who don't know Christ if he hit them in a$$.

Sigh.

If that's what you truly believe, then trying to discuss this issue rationally with you is a waste of Jim Rob's bandwidth.

And, for the record, I'm not an Evangelical or an Evangelical blow hard. I have very strong concerns when a single judge is allowed to control what is admitted into testimony and what may be ignored and suppressed; when authorities won't do their jobs and investigate suspicious events; when someone who is a family member by marriage for a relatively short period of time is allowed to have hreater control over another, than the family who conceived, bore and raised that individual for most of her life; that the judiciary, in this country, can sentence someone to death on the word of one single individual who, after 7 years, suddenly "remembered" what his wife's wishes would be (after winning a malptactice suit); that false and misinformation about a case can be presented as fact by a propanganda arm such as the MSM; that those we elect to protect us and our rights fail to do so on the fear of annoying a mean-spirited, biased judge who might issue a court order against them; that fundamental issues of right vs. wrong are overshadowed by who presents a better strategy in court; that those whose only crime in life is to suffer a disability for which they received little treatment or rehab can be murdered for convenience and, finally, God forbid, that the same should happen to me.

So, while you wring your hands over the TWO MILLIONS!!!! of Christians in the Sudan are veing slaughtered by Muslim terrorists, you completely ignore or don't care about the same thing happening in THIS country.

The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. Terri was our single step and we, surely, faltered. Under what ethical or moral superiority shall we claim the right to stop the pogrom in the Sudan when we refuse to stop the murder of innocents here?

The difference is that Scott Peterson was judged to be guilty and deserving of a death sentence by "a jury of his peers."

He had twelve people he could have convinved of his innocence.

Terri was sentenced do death on the say so of a probate court judge. Not a jury.

Btw, I'm not an Evangelical Christian.

It doesn't take anyone being an Evangelical Christian or even a excessively religious peron to know right from wrong if they have a moral compass, a conscience and aren't a sociopath.

To me, religion doesn't even enter into this. It is always wrong to murder an innocent person. That's the bottom line.