All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
You're talking about the jurors? Because I've been informed that calling ordinary folks like those who serve on juries, or vote in presidential elections and suchlike "morons" just because they arrive a different conclusion than the one you might prefer is the mark of a condescending liberal elitist. You want to watch out for that - very bad. Even worse if you happen to live in New York or San Francisco. Just ask Bilbo.

And since we're talking about childhoods now and posting graphic images, do I get to post pictures of Iraqi kids all torn to shit by Operation Ooops There Really Wasn't Anything In Those Winnebagos and Operation Hussein And Osama Were Tight Like That, No Really? Because there are a few out there that might make you wonder exactly what kind of death you might prefer, for yourself and for your family, or at least how it is that some kinds of dead people are so much more valuable than others when the rhetorical knives come out.

I could give a shit whether Moussawi dies or rots the rest of his useless life in prison. If anyone thinks either option is going to make a ball hair's worth of difference to The Global War On/Of/For Terrorism or whatever it's called this week you give that asshole more credit than he's worth.

what's most confused is your strained ability to distinguish the 2 situations- expected, but confused.

what's most confusing is that (and i was watching) it took you a half an hour to compose this nonsense- you know your breezy NYC hipster "I'm all in control" attitude? That's a front, huh?

The bus you took to middle school- how many rows of seats- 10 or so?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) If his case doesn't merit a death sentence, whose would?? You may as well remove the penalty from the books. It's meaningless.

2) And FWIW, yes, I'm more concerned about how they got there. Aren't you?

(1) That's interesting. I'm pretty much anti-death penalty (usual rant about Cafeteria Catholics like Jeb Bush and Antonin Scalia deleted), so take this with a grain of salt, but I would say that this is not a case where the death penalty is warranted. It just seems that he was too far removed from the conspiracy, despite his wishful thinking.

(2) Yes and no. Interesting article in Slate on that very point -- which boxes the jury checked, and possible explanations of why they did. And I am occasionally troubled by how juries reach their decisions, but I think that the rare odd/stupid verdict is the price we pay for having a jury of our peers make these sorts of decisions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
(1) That's interesting. I'm pretty much anti-death penalty (usual rant about Cafeteria Catholics like Jeb Bush and Antonin Scalia deleted), so take this with a grain of salt, but I would say that this is not a case where the death penalty is warranted. It just seems that he was too far removed from the conspiracy, despite his wishful thinking.

(2) Yes and no. Interesting article in Slate on that very point -- which boxes the jury checked, and possible explanations of why they did. And I am occasionally troubled by how juries reach their decisions, but I think that the rare odd/stupid verdict is the price we pay for having a jury of our peers make these sorts of decisions.

The Slate article gives the impression that there was a box given to the jurors for "limited involvement" but the NYT article said that 3 jurors wrote it in. Anyone know what the story is on this?

ETA because I could see some jurors not wanting to check the made-up, unofficial box.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The Slate article gives the impression that there was a box given to the jurors for "limited involvement" but the NYT article said that 3 jurors wrote it in. Anyone know what the story is on this?

ETA because I could see some jurors not wanting to check the made-up, unofficial box.

am i on ignore again? I posted the actual form. they did write that in- and mentioned that 3 found for it.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The Slate article gives the impression that there was a box given to the jurors for "limited involvement" but the NYT article said that 3 jurors wrote it in. Anyone know what the story is on this?

ETA because I could see some jurors not wanting to check the made-up, unofficial box.

Via our former landlords, here's the actual form. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/m.../jv2phase.html

As you can see, there's a printed one that says his role in the operation was minor, and a handwritten one that says his knowledge of the attack plans was limited.

So, they're sorta different factors -- I'd guess probably the same people voted for both of these, but who knows.

ETA: Sorry if the link was already posted, hank -- I don't have you on ignore, but I don't remember actually looking at the form. Maybe I just like fringey better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dissent. It's good for people to hear from him. His side is already focused and angry- he ain't going to make them more so. it's our side that needs to remember.

edit: jury verdict form-

http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/mou1852.pdf

interesting point, preventing him from becoming a martyr was a factor to NO jurors in the sentence. Rough childhood and abusive daddy were factors to 9 jurors.

I wonder what this lady's childhood was like.



stolen from lgf

hmmmmm

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hmmmmm

Ah. I remember the pic, don't remember the link to the form. Perhaps fringey and I read your post before the edit adding the link.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's most confused is your strained ability to distinguish the 2 situations- expected, but confused.

what's most confusing is that (and i was watching) it took you a half an hour to compose this nonsense- you know your breezy NYC hipster "I'm all in control" attitude? That's a front, huh?

The bus you took to middle school- how many rows of seats- 10 or so?

I meant that posting that picture was cheap, like your suits.

And it's hippy, not hipster.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hmmmmm

Perhaps it was the disturbing photograph you posted that urged others to simply scroll past your post as quickly as possible?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ah. I remember the pic, don't remember the link to the form. Perhaps fringey and I read your post before the edit adding the link.

Yes, in that 18-hour window between posting and editing, I think.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ah. I remember the pic, don't remember the link to the form. Perhaps fringey and I read your post before the edit adding the link.

got me. i was just trying to increase my oil profits.

and Wonk, yes the picture is disturbing. but the answer isn't to put out of our minds it happened- saying Mousarria(sp?) will now go away quietly and we can move on- that's more disturbing.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
got me. i was just trying to increase my oil profits.

and Wonk, yes the picture is disturbing. but the answer isn't to put out of our minds it happened- saying Mousarria(sp?) will now go away quietly and we can move on- that's more disturbing.

Hey, I wasn't playing "gotcha" -- I just honestly didn't remember seeing the link when I saw your post.

Apropos of nothing, Slate's dialog this week has Robert Kagan, and in his entry yesterday, he made the most cogent and lucid defense of invading Iraq that I have seen.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, in that 18-hour window between posting and editing, I think.

one. it was 16 hours, and that was a second minor edit- the edit that added the verdict form was earlier and also added the photo.

[sgtclub]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/05/D8HDQCV80.html

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/05/D8HDQCV80.html

Sometimes I doubt my decision to invest my retirement fund exclusively in the fine products issued by the Franklin Mint. But only for a moment. This bubble will burst, mark my words.