///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Scott Peterson: Guilty
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 20 comments
- 799 views
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
Can someone explain to me how he was guilty for murdering his unborn child yet abortions are fully legal? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Not that it really matters in this case because he was going away anyway.
Not that it really matters in this case because he was going away anyway.
Well she was planning on keeping the child so I think that would be considered a murder? In some courts yet I see ..Not being a smart ass or anything of course. What if a woman(GOD forbid) was 8-9 months pregnant and someone went up there and stabbed her in the stomach without her consent of course killing the baby she had intended on keeping yet she still lived? argh this is going to turn into an abortion discussion heehe.Klostrophobic
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
Aren't there plenty of abortions done just shy of birth? These aren't considered murder.
I think the ones shy of birth are done due to complications that will occur with the baby..i think deformities, danger to mothers health or some certain circumstances. Again this is going to get kinda nasty possibly hehe. But I think if someone is going to intentionally keep the baby at no cost and someone kills the baby along with the wife depending on how long (term) she is I think thats murder...gah here we go.
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
I agree with you, but I would probably also say that abortion is murder, too.
So what's the latest you can legally perform an abortion?
So what's the latest you can legally perform an abortion?
- 19,727
- Alabamamania
Ummm....let's not get away from the facts: Scott Peterson killed his wife, the murder was premeditated, and he tried to change his outward identity during the investigation.
Guilty as charged, and I think he deserves the death penalty for his crime.
Guilty as charged, and I think he deserves the death penalty for his crime.
- 3,425
The trial was a joke even for a Third world country and the verdict will be apealed with a good to excellent chance of success . The evidence and the investigation sucked. As guilty as I believe this scum bag to be , his trial was another low point in American jurisprudance.
- 19,727
- Alabamamania
Why do you think it was a joke? I don't see any failings in the judicial process based on this trial. Sure, the media kept us informed on many useless details of this case, but I don't think the actual judicial process was completely tampered with due to newspapers, TV, internet, and magazines.ledhed
There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence; heck, it's best evidence there is.
The process of the trial was unimportant to me. He killed his wife, and now he'll pay the price. That's it as far as I'm concerned. And good riddance to him.
I lived in the Bay Area at the time, so there were updates on the news every single night for months after Laci's disappearance. It was quite clear early on that he did it, it was just a matter of collecting enough evidence to present in court. Which, based on today's verdict, they did.
I lived in the Bay Area at the time, so there were updates on the news every single night for months after Laci's disappearance. It was quite clear early on that he did it, it was just a matter of collecting enough evidence to present in court. Which, based on today's verdict, they did.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,105
- Mile High City
You can be convicted of murder for killing an unborn child simply because the parent intended to have the child. That's not the same thing as considering an unborn child to have rights in-and-of-itself.
One could view it as infringing on the rights of the parents.
Anyway the pro-lifers won't be able to use this. In the legal world it's quite distinct.
One could view it as infringing on the rights of the parents.
Anyway the pro-lifers won't be able to use this. In the legal world it's quite distinct.
- 2,760
Okay enough with the angry swearing and the anal rape wishes. Can't we have an educated discussion without someone saying, "Yeah, I hope he gets it in the a$$ 1000 times in jail, the ****in loser!" It doesn't accomplish anything.
But I am interested to know how the police fumbled the trial, because I've only heard bits andpieces of it up here in Canada. Ledhed, tell us what you know...
But I am interested to know how the police fumbled the trial, because I've only heard bits andpieces of it up here in Canada. Ledhed, tell us what you know...
- 3,425
The police didn't fumble the trial . They had very poor evidence to convict someone of murder. The best evidence they had was the bodys turning up close to where the idiot told them he went " fishing ". Remember we live in a country where OJ was found innocent and that the standard of guilt is BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT. You had jurors doing their own research on the web after the trial ( they were dismissed) . The trial was a circus. I think the scumbags guilty but I also think the prosecution should have put a case toghether that was alot firmer, if the scumbag was a little bit more presentable in court he could have easily beat the flimsy case the prosecution put up. As it is he was tried and convicted by the media and the talk shows and I guess that pisses me off. Thankfully for his wife's family the scumbag had a lawyer that sucked and a bad expert witness or the case would have hung the jury or he would have been aquited. But give it a few days and watch how many of the " jurors " show up with book deals .
- 19,727
- Alabamamania
Habeus corpus right there.ledhed
He had motive, means, and an opportunity. The biggest motivating factor is that he had another lady, and likely didn't want to deal with a child. He had the means, (although I can't recall if a weapon was found), and plenty of opportunity (and even enough time to murder her, get a perm, and a new car).
True, but it wasn't that flimsy of a prosecution; he had no decent alibi and has hounded from the moment the media jumped all over him, and thus gained access to every aspect of his life. There were criminal patterns and precendences to explain his behavior, and that said alot about the man.
For years we all thought Richard Jewett was the fellow who caused the bombings during the '96 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. As is was, he lived in shame because of the media, which branded him as an evil-doer who made cover-up after cover-up, and was a material witness from the get-go. He got his life back because Eric Rudolff was finally caught a short while back. So yes, the media has a way of making us pre-determine who is guilty and not, but you have to balance ot out for your self if you're a juror, or any sensible human being.
As for the book deal(s), there's one born every minute.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Just my opinion here, but...
Scott was found guilty.
I suspected that he was guilty but I wasn't a juror.
(You guys have gotta admit...
he dyed his hair and beard blonde, gathered up all his money, collected water filters and credit cards, and then tried to make it across the border into Mexico... That all makes him look pretty damn guilty.)
However, the actual jurors of the trial found scott to be guilty after a long trial and some diliberations.
I have faith that those people made the right decision.
On a side note though...
I think scott made his mistake when he selected his lawyer.
Mark Geragos is the biggest and most expensive do nothing attorney I have ever seen.
The man only cares to see himself on tv... Luckily, when you're a wanna be celebrity you just can't put in the time/effort needed to win a case (unless your big Jonny C).
So yeah, my say...
Scott was found guilty by a jury.
Lacy was a good woman who deserved a good life.
Mark Geragos is a punk.
Just my opinion though.
Scott was found guilty.
I suspected that he was guilty but I wasn't a juror.
(You guys have gotta admit...
he dyed his hair and beard blonde, gathered up all his money, collected water filters and credit cards, and then tried to make it across the border into Mexico... That all makes him look pretty damn guilty.)
However, the actual jurors of the trial found scott to be guilty after a long trial and some diliberations.
I have faith that those people made the right decision.
On a side note though...
I think scott made his mistake when he selected his lawyer.
Mark Geragos is the biggest and most expensive do nothing attorney I have ever seen.
The man only cares to see himself on tv... Luckily, when you're a wanna be celebrity you just can't put in the time/effort needed to win a case (unless your big Jonny C).
So yeah, my say...
Scott was found guilty by a jury.
Lacy was a good woman who deserved a good life.
Mark Geragos is a punk.
Just my opinion though.
Similar threads
