What do you think of Shepard Smith's reaction?
1 posted on
07/08/2011 2:31:49 PM PDT by
ladyellen
To: ladyellen
Let’s not be stupid. It falls under negligence.
To: ladyellen
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
--Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
3 posted on
07/08/2011 2:33:53 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenel des Ursins)
To: ladyellen
Casey Anthony Case Fuels Push in States for 'Caylee's Law' |
Swell. More laws. Just what we needed.
4 posted on
07/08/2011 2:34:04 PM PDT by
Lazlo in PA
(Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
To: ladyellen
So what is it going to be...a law against incompetent prosecutors???
To: ladyellen
Butthead Smith is at least two good reasons not to watch television!
This whole fiasco is more reflexive reaction to an image painted by the pimps of the media and the law industry.
Where is the outcry against permitting the pimps of the media to use a trial of a crime as a prop to promote their emotional EXPERTISE?. The trial should be taped for later discussion and analyses, but NO BROADCASTS OF A TRIAL IN PROGRESS. This certainly adds to the length of the trial
Where is the outcry against prosecutors (mostly political appointees) being held accountable for bringing a case without sufficient evidence (i.e., WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH?)
Having TV programs 365/24/7 reported as NEWS is absurd and it should STOP!
To: ladyellen
To: ladyellen
shouldn’t we have a Terry’s law first?
Or perhaps a John Lennon’s law?
13 posted on
07/08/2011 3:04:54 PM PDT by
bert
(K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
To: ladyellen
Would this law apply to women who abort their children?
To: ladyellen
I forget who, but someone (Instapundit?) suggested a while back that as a rule of thumb, any law named after a child is probably a bad law.
17 posted on
07/08/2011 3:17:44 PM PDT by
Grut
To: ladyellen
Flabbergasted. He got it right. Now we’ve got one more piece of useless legislation.
18 posted on
07/08/2011 3:20:15 PM PDT by
Mach9
To: ladyellen
Let’s make it mandatory to call the government every night and tell them how are whole day went. For confessions of capital crimes press #3.
22 posted on
07/08/2011 3:58:24 PM PDT by
TigersEye
(Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
To: ladyellen
Don’t they have negligent homicide already? Reckless endangerment that resulted in homicide?
25 posted on
07/08/2011 4:10:09 PM PDT by
gidget7
("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
To: ladyellen
You can’t pass a law that will keep prosecutors from inflating charges to something they can’t prove. I have seen that as a juror and so has my wife. It is evil to have to vote “not guilty” for someone who is guilty as sin but was charged with way more than the prosecution can prove. In this system the prosecution has to prove its case. If the perp is charged with more than there is evidence to show then the perp will walk.
27 posted on
07/08/2011 5:18:31 PM PDT by
arthurus
(Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
To: ladyellen
These trials jump out of gear with the media coverage. No TV and only a pool representative from the written media allowed the court room. After that....pound sand!
28 posted on
07/08/2011 5:20:10 PM PDT by
pointsal
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson