Dont forget the case was held in the Peoples Republic of California so different laws may apply

well, having just served time on a jury not long ago.....they told us to talk over everything-after the case is handed over of course...like they said, we each might miss something, or hear something others didn't. then you have your own knowledge to go on as well. etc etc.
if the guy is guilty as hell, and i believe he is 100%, then they did the right thing by finding him guilty.

I don't want part in any society that teaches kids to shoot guns and hunt. That's my qualm with using "we."

Well, lets see if I can get in trouble here....I have never publically stated whether I believe OJ to be guilty, I have said I think Peterson did kill his wife and baby. I won't give a personal opinion on OJ because he was found "not guilty" by the jury therefore my opinion is worthless and meaningless. Peterson having been convicted I believe frees me to say I question the verdict. It would have been difficult for me to vote "guilty" had I been on the Peterson jury cause I agree that the evidence was convincing but short of conclusive...so I am not comfortable that the jury reached the correct verdict. In the OJ case, my problem is Furman...a racist cop who admitted he'd gladly falsify evidence against a black man handling key evidence in the case...in all honesty, I don't think I would have voted differently from the jury. I think for our system of justice to work...for a jury to "do the right thing", they have to vote based solely on the evidence presented, so...in my opinion..the right thing for the jury is determined by the evidence presented, not the actual guilt or innocense of the accused. When a person's fate is to be determined, what someone "knows" or assumes doesn't matter...

I understand...but while I agree with you, I am part of that "we" also!

i just know what they told us there-that yes, you are supposed to use what was presented-but that you aren't supposed to completely ignore common knowledge, previous experience, etc. by the same token, you aren't supposed to consider things the judge says not to-such as if one lawyer asks a question and that questioning is halted, but the witness answers before objections being raised.

it's the beauty of living here. everyone has rights, and everyone has the choice of whether or not to exercise those rights. but just because i choose to, or not to, i won't criticize anyone else for choosing differently. it'd be nice if everyone felt that way.

I usually agree, but hunting for the sake of hunting is, to me, one of the most despicable "activities" -- if you can call it that -- one can possibly participate in.

It's not as if it's just some alternate interest I don't understand. I don't understand plenty of stuff.. Opera, theater, painting, etc. But I'm not disgusted by any of it.

Hunters are disgusting and morally corrupt.

Yep, count me in here too! I went hunting a couple times in WVa with my first wife's family...never shot anything, never wanted to...just figured I'd go with them and see what the attraction was. Ended up behind trees taking turns shooting at each other...did I mention we took several bottles of Southern Comfort along? Never got the thrill of hunting animals...after I got back from Nam, I realized that what I had been called upon to do for real was what these guys were role playing...not the same though, Charlie shot back, deers don't. As I've said (along with others here), if someone needs to hunt for food, I'm ok with that...but the rest???Why????

well, i was going to get ticked off...but you said hunting for the sake of hunting, and i don't do that...

you can't buy venison in the store.

what i don't understand is:

if i go to the store, and buy meat someone else killed and eat it-that's ok.
but if i kill it, and then eat it, i'm disgusting and morally corrupt? i guess since someone else did the dirty work?

as for your comparison to opera, theatre etc...i was thinking more along the line of activities that some enjoy, while others don't and make moral judgements about. horse racing and gambling for instance. i can't recall anyone saying oh opera, i hate it--those singers are corrupt. but i have heard those arguments, and similar, regarding racing. oh those poor animals, how cruel. or the line a boy said to my daughter the other day when she mentioned barbaro had died. OH. horse racing. we're GOOD CHRISTIANS, we don't believe in gambling. so, he just pretty much summed her up as being a bad person, because she felt bad about barbaro.

dahoss, the deer win far more battles then they don't. trust me on that one.

it's a real shame that there are those that have more empathy for the criminals and or no sympathy for the victims.

if you don't know right and wrong at 17 you're never going to get it

If hunters wanted to be real sporting, hey wouldnt use guns, they would use their bare hands like Rambo. Their is nothing sporting about them. If you cant find another hobby to keep your life enjoyable other than killing animals, you are lame and should seek help. Bang!

my big issue with all this is, if you don't want to hunt fine. but i don't see why anyone has to be so judgemental because they don't understand it.

how many of you like it when someone gets indignant about your enjoyment of racing and betting? does it bother you when you're judged for that? but it's ok for you to do the same to someone else when it's about a subject you don't like i suppose...

and you all are aware that most money for wildlife management, for wildlife areas, comes from hunters, right?
did you know deer #'s are higher than during colonial times?
that members of the nwtf have brought wild turkey #'s to unprecedented levels. and no, hunters didn't almost run them to extinction-loss of habitat did. and guess who stepped up...yep, rotten hunters. the lot of them should be horse whipped.

Good question Danzig and believe me, I have lost certain "friends" along the way because of my devotion to horse racing & the gambling of it. I know many people think I am a bit of an oddball (aka loser) because I am not more interested in normal things like going to bars and playing in basketball leagues. To be honest I could care less about that, as long as I have respect from my wife and the few friends that count. Everyone else can say what they want.

I guess its because of the stereotype of horse player that one ses in OTBs. The bad rap hunting gets can also be attributed to the negative stereotype you see from hillbillies driving pick up trucks looking like they havent bathed in a longer time than the deer they are hunting and their badass attitude.

You arent erasing either one of these so if it means something to you go ahead and do it and dont listen to what others have to say. You only go around once baby.

hunting is spiritual

and it is possible for Fruman to be a racist cop and for OJ to be guilty
regardless of the verdict

yeah, my daughter had her first go 'round the other day about racing. i think she was a bit surprised at what the guy said. i told her she better get used to it. it's funny, i've been a fan of racing for years and years, but only recently started into the gambling part. still a very tentative bettor. she didn't expect the automatic equation of horse racing meaning gambling-meaning sin! lol

and too true about getting one trip--at least, i guess that's all we get. altho i have said before that in my next life, i want to be a middle linebacker in the nfl.

i think folks who have never gone would be surprised at how it really is. i can't count how many days i've spent in the woods this year. get to see some awesome sights. lots of deer, squirrels, rabbits-and a beautiful red fox.
and i can count on one finger how many deer i brought back with me this year. i'd imagine people think there are bullets flying and deer dropping like flies.
one morning alone, in about three hours, my son and i got to see about two dozen deer, turkeys, raccoons and we had a hawk fly right by us. beautiful morning, and not a trigger pulled. we had a blast sitting and talking and just being outside.

I like being in the woods also, but preferrably running or biking on the trails. I dont have it in me to ever kill a beautiful deer. I dont think I'd have a problem shooting an intruder but an innocent deer? Nope.

innocent? you ought to see what that one did to my car! they're conniving i tell ya.

they are beautiful.

I have family that are so branwashed into hating guns. I tried to explain that it is actually more difficult to hunt with a hand gun than a shotgun. But was shouted down. so, I just smile and think.. family

My sister absolutely hated guns until I took her shooting. She had a blast
:rolleyes:
sorry
:o


btw most of my guns are not for hunting. The right to arm bears is not about hunting

I love horseracing and look forward to the card at gulfstream
even if it looks a little chalky. Last week was GREAT!

i don't have a problem with people disagreeing. different strokes for different folks. i understand it seems odd to you, but it doesn't seem odd to me...also wish that the difference could be left at that, and not degenerate into name calling by some.
we're different. doesn't make one of us wrong, or one of us right.

It's also possible that George Bush is an alien and Kerry is really Lurch reincarnated..."being possible" is hardly grounds for a guilty verdict. The problem with that case was the handling of the investigation by the LAPD from beginning to end. The LAPD has a terrible rep in minority community and this was certainly not their finest hour. The prosecution team was overmatched by OJ's "dream team"...that's sad but then, how many times is an innocent person convicted of a crime because they had to rely on a Public Defender who was either overworked, inept or simply not caring? It saddens me that the rich can buy their way out of trouble and that's another topic (remember me...the alleged communist/socialist/anarchist?) but here...Furman handled key evidence...are you sure he didn't tamper with or plant same? I'm not! There were unexplained problems with the prosecution's time line, a glove that didn't fit, lack of key evidence, sudden appearance of socks...on and on!

I know I don't personalize arguments....my issues aren't with hunters but with the mindset. In the past hunting was necessary, hell...even Wiccans pay homage to the hunt...our Lord/God often depicted with horns to signify the male role of provider (ie: hunter)...but today, the vast majority of folks don't have to hunt to avoid starving. As I've said before, you hunt to put food on your family's table....that's not only your right but your responsibility, but hunting as a sport??? Sorry, nothing spiritual about it unless you practice animal sacrifice as part of your religion.

no, i don't think you called anyone anything. i'm willing to discuss just about anything, i just don't like when people slap labels.

but then, i really wish this thread hadn't got into all this. not sure the connection between abuse and hunting. they don't go together. plenty of abusers out there who wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other.

ever grow a garden? raise chickens? pigs? go fishing? none of them are 'necessary'. personally, i think the fact that stores and all the goodies inside sanitized things too much. people see 'hamburger', not dead cow..or brisket, tenderloin, boneless breast instead of the chicken....neatly wrapped packages on display...all the dirty work done for you.

Big difference between putting tomato plants in the ground versus putting a 2 inch hole in bambi.

not really. it's all a part of being self-reliant, being part of nature.

hey, i'm not trying to convert anyone. just trying to put things in context a bit, and trying to let others know i'm not morally corrupt or lacking respect for life, which are some of the things i've read in this thread.

and bambi is a cartoon character. the proper term would be virginia whitetail...or Odocoileus virginianus.

and does this help at all??? please read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/

In Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time! Again, hunters aren't the problem...hunting for sport is!

are we even talking about the same thing?

Sure we are....lots of folks who hunt are wonderful people, they do (and have done) many worthwhile things...no argument. My issue is with hunting and the mindset that somehow killing innocent animals with high powered weapons is sport. When you post a link that lists all the great things hunters have done, that's the same thing as saying "the trains run on time" giving the ruthless fascist dictatorship of Mussolini credit for doing something positive while ignoring the evil perpetrated.

so what is more detrimental, the hunter--who funds 90% of conservation efforts in this country?

or ban the hunter, and lose that funding? who will replace it? what would happen then? who would be the stewards then? the taxpayer?

what state would wildlife be if it hadn't been for those efforts? how many deer would there be? or turkey? would we have all the habitats, all the wetlands if hunters hadn't done so much over the last century? you did see the vast improvements made to the herds, right? elk were re-introduced to arkansas a few years ago, who paid for that? you didn't. i did.

and keep in mind, hunters have a book full of rules to follow, set forth by each states game and fish commission, and they change every year. herd #'s, overall health are constantly monitored. tags are limited each year. duck hunters are allowed so many shells on their person at a time(i believe its 15-doesn't last very long), and have to follow strict guidelines of how many of each species and sex allowed. they have to have a plug in their gun to limit how many shells it will hold.

So...if serial killers contributed millions to charity, we should allow them to go on killing?