Paris if a free woman again...

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem here is that we are talking about two completely different subjects...you are explaining why Paris deserves to "pay for her crime" and I'm talking about a judge who, in my opinion, is grossly overstepping his authority and using someone as a pawn in a "pissing contest" with the sheriff.

Yeah, the problem is that the two subjects come together to make the "story". It's my contention that the focus of the story (AKA the "big picture", or "forest", or "elephant") is Paris Hilton, and not the judge (the trees).

My feeling is that most reasonable and prudent people would agree with me, but I have no way of proving that on here. As I said, you have the right to focus on whatever you want, but it did strike me as strange that you were the same person that posted the Hancock reply. Oh well...I guess I'll just pray we never get on a jury together. My feeling is that you've seen 12 angry men a few too many times.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Yeah, the problem is that the two subjects come together to make the "story". It's my contention that the focus of the story (AKA the "big picture", or "forest", or "elephant") is Paris Hilton, and not the judge (the trees).

My feeling is that most reasonable and prudent people would agree with me, but I have no way of proving that on here. As I said, you have the right to focus on whatever you want, but it did strike me as strange that you were the same person that posted the Hancock reply. Oh well...I guess I'll just pray we never get on a jury together. My feeling is that you've seen 12 angry men a few too many times.

LOL! I don't see the hypocracy in my points of view though...in Hancock, I was agruing that folks are indeed responsible for their actions...in Hilton, I'm saying exactly the same thing, Ms Hilton AND the judge are both responsible for their respective actions. I simply don't believe the story here is Hilton (although the media has certainly made it all about her and the public swallows the bait), I believe this is an example of a judge deciding to make an example out of someone and then getting into a "pissing contest" with the sheriff using Ms Hilton (and the public outcry against her) to go beyond his jurisdiction and impose his will on the sheriff...we'll see what the appeals court says.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

LOL! I don't see the hypocracy in my points of view though...in Hancock, I was agruing that folks are indeed responsible for their actions...in Hilton, I'm saying exactly the same thing, Ms Hilton AND the judge are both responsible for their respective actions. I simply don't believe the story here is Hilton (although the media has certainly made it all about her and the public swallows the bait), I believe this is an example of a judge deciding to make an example out of someone and then getting into a "pissing contest" with the sheriff using Ms Hilton (and the public outcry against her) to go beyond his jurisdiction and impose his will on the sheriff...we'll see what the appeals court says.

By the way, I would probably have voted "not guilty" in the OJ trial so you are probably justified in never wanting to serve on a jury with me! This is hard work...debating this topic with several folks and conducting a fantasy baseball draft at the same time...who says I'm too old to multi-task?

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

By the way, I would probably have voted "not guilty" in the OJ trial so you are probably justified in never wanting to serve on a jury with me! This is hard work...debating this topic with several folks and conducting a fantasy baseball draft at the same time...who says I'm too old to multi-task?

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

You didn't have a problem with that case?

[ninetoone]

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Oh jeez...from Paris to OJ.

Mommy, make the bad men stop!!!!!!!!111111111

I'm nothing if not inclusive!