Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Law and Reason - Col.Bob Pappas on Abortion & the Peterson Trial Verdict Contradiction
GULF1.COM ^ | DECEMBER 14, 2004 | COLONEL BOB PAPPAS, USMC (Ret)

Posted on 12/14/2004 1:40:00 PM PST by CHARLITE

The “Law” and “Reason” by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Ret.

One cannot help but be familiar with the Peterson trial, if only by accident. It is the latest media driven “Soap Opera” from the courtroom played out for the public on national television. Where it certainly merited a report, a casual observer could get the impression that it was on par with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, or “OJ” Simpson’s trial for “killing” his estranged wife.

There are several factors about or related to the Peterson trial that merit comment. First, if anyone is surprised by the verdict and punishment, that person needs to perform reality check. Second, Peterson was an insignificant salesman who murdered his wife and their unborn son, and who has through media hype been given almost unprecedented notoriety. Third, the only, repeat only reason that it received that notoriety is because the media tailored and hyped news coverage to keep or enhance ratings; it’s all about money! Fourth, the finding of “guilty” was predictable, and his attorney focused attention on legal maneuvering rather than substantive defense. Fifth, legal maneuvering too often determines the outcome rather than actual guilt or innocence; “OJ” Simpson is a case in point.

Fifth above, is reminiscent of the run-up to Clinton’s impeachment where Clinton used every legal maneuver known, and a few that were so preposterous as to elicit unconstrained laughter among those in the know, to avoid the inevitable. The funniest, not humorous but funniest, as in “comical,” being Clinton’s assertion, under the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, that as Commander-in-Chief he was on active duty and thus eligible for a delay in the proceedings until after his term in office. Similarly, Geragos’s (Peterson’s attorney) series of publicity stunts that were designed to influence public opinion, and presumably the jury, were the empty gestures of a desperate attorney grasping at proverbial “straws” to save an obviously guilty man; that’s called “best effort.”

There is at least one serious element of the trial that merits elaboration. Peterson was tried and convicted of the first degree murder of his wife and second degree murder of their unborn son. It is the “murder” conviction of the unborn son that is significant because it bestows personhood upon a “fetus.” The question arises, how is it possible to murder a fetus that is legal to abort under California and Federal Law? How is it possible for the same object in a woman’s womb be both protected by the law and not subject to the law? The only possible answer is: “that is the law.”

It may be the “law” but at some point the “law” must comport with logic, reason and rationality or the nation will deepen its plunge into societal schizophrenia, home to most on the political left. The California “law” that makes it illegal for another to kill an unborn child does so while simultaneously affirming the right of a woman to abort (murder) that same child. Therefore, it is theoretically possible in California for one to be convicted of attempted murder of an unborn child, followed by the mother thereafter aborting that same child without so much as an editorial comment in the local paper. That, dear reader, is insane. It raises a question about the mental fitness of the “l_____s” who wrote the law; and they have the audacity to pawn this off as a women’s rights issue? B(umper) S(ticker)!!!

Semper Fidelis

Comments:cheetah@gulf1.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2nddegree; abortion; baby; child; contradictions; fetus; laws; legal; scottpeterson; trial; verdict

1 posted on 12/14/2004 1:40:01 PM PST by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'm waiting for Peterson's lawyers to ask that the 2nd degree murder conviction concerning the child be set aside in exchange for him pleading guilty to a charge of "practicing medicine without a license".


2 posted on 12/14/2004 1:46:58 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

hahahahahaha times a million. :-D


3 posted on 12/14/2004 1:50:41 PM PST by Just Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I don't see how skunks like Geragos live with themselves -- and throw in Johnny Cochran too. My only regret in the sentence for Peterson is that I wanted him to get life in prison...death is the easiest way out, and it is a real laugh in California, because he will now stay alive for 10 to 20 years paid for by the taxpayers. That stinks. Too bad this murder was not committed in Texas...no problems with liberal judiciaries there. Plus, he would have been much more vulnerable to getting snuffed by inmates...which most certainly would have happened, but not until Bruno and Bruce got thier fill of him (sinister chuckle)....


4 posted on 12/14/2004 1:56:06 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

I know- I guess when someone is accused of the crime they should just be punbished without actualy having their day in court- Long Live King George!!!


5 posted on 12/14/2004 2:26:35 PM PST by amosmoses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
Gloria Allred called Geragos "Mr. Hollywood." I don't agree with Gloria's politics, but she has been "dead right" (HA!) about Peterson and about his flim-flam man lawyer throughout this soap opera. Geragos is a fraud, in my opinion. Nearly all talking-head "legal analysts" appearing on Fox, MSNBC (Dan Abrams) and other shows feel that it is politically correct to state that Geragos "is a great lawyer," but my guy is Geoff Feiger who comes right out and calls a spade a spade.

Feiger doesn't mind telling it like it is: - that Geragos did as bad a job defending Scott as he did defending Winona Ryder. Both times he had guilty-as-sin clients. Both times he made extravagant promises to the juries about how he was going to "prove" the clients' innocence. Both times, he failed to deliver. He knew, going in, that he had no case. However, that didn't stop him from all manner of grandstanding.

He took at least a million dollars from the Petersons who kept saying how "pleased" they were with his representation of their little Prince, Scotty, "the perfect infant, perfect little boy, perfect teenager, perfect college student, perfect son, trying-to-be-perfect GOLFER and perfect husband to Laci and father-to-be to Conner!"

I wonder how pleased they are now with this song and dance man who never saw a sidewalk bank of microphones that he didn't like..........which about sums it up for Mark Geragos. So far, for high profile cases, he's O for 2. I wonder which kleptomaniac or slick-talking wife-and-baby killer he'll go after next.......to "represent."

Char

6 posted on 12/14/2004 2:51:21 PM PST by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

So that's what the ex-CO of MAG-31 and MCAS Iwakuni is doing these days...


7 posted on 12/14/2004 2:53:03 PM PST by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
How is it possible for the same object in a woman’s womb be both protected by the law and not subject to the law? The only possible answer is: “that is the law.”

It may be the “law” but at some point the “law” must comport with logic, reason and rationality or the nation will deepen its plunge into societal schizophrenia, home to most on the political left.


His use of "political left" is particularly disingenuous ... though it's possible he's just ignorant of the fact this "schizophrenia" was enshrined as law by the "conservative" justices (appointed by "Republican" presidents) who decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
8 posted on 12/14/2004 10:09:22 PM PST by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson