Reply to Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A question for those who support a not guilty verdict: how do you explain the fact that his phone never moved again 10 seconds after he exited her car? [/quote]

They don't have an answer. She clearly hit him. [/quote]

She could have hit him and still not be guilty of murder.  [/quote]

Wrong. If she hit him, it's clearly murder 2 - does NOT require intent to hit him, does NOT require intent to kill him. Only requires the intent to do the reckless act - backing at 24mph 75% throttle in the dark under the influence at the last known position of a human being whose life was thus endangered.[/quote]

Not quite.  2d degree murder in Massachusetts under that theory requires that the jury find that the defendant intended to do an act that a reasonable person would know creates a “plain and strong likelihood that death would result.”  A jury could find that the manner in which she backed up does not meet this standard.[/quote]

What are you smoking? What reasonable person on this planet would think it was safe and normal to back a vehicle in the dark at 24mph 75% throttle at an exposed human body??? Please, the grasping at straws makes you look like an idiot. Better you just keep quiet and preserve some illusion of intelligence.[/quote]

I’m literally a prosecutor.  There’s a huge delta between “unsafe” and “strong likelihood that death would result.”  I’m interesting in having a thoughtful discussion of this case.  Can you please not insult me?[/quote]

I'm a former prosecutor and I find your lack of intelligent comment on this issue stunning. Go get in your car and back down your driveway 24mph in the dark at your children and get back to us with the results, m'kay?[/quote]

Do you understand that “unsafe” is not the same as conduct creating a strong likelihood of death?[/quote]

Hitting someone at 25mph has a very good chance of killing them. About 1 in 4.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/[/quote]

Oops, misread the comma, 1 in 10. That's still not a risk most would accept. [/quote]

And how many of those times leaves a person with nary a bruise? [/quote]

Apparently, the guy looked like he had been mauled by a dog, but didn't have any bruises from like a dog bite? The dog took special care to not bite too hard? Is that the alternative explanation?[/quote]

[b]The dog bites left significant abrasions. [/b]If you watched the trial, you would know what they look like. It’s like Freddy Krueger got involved. It’s a different injury mechanism and it left significant scraping injuries but not massive subcutaneous blood vessel damage. Serious marks, but not technically bruises.[/quote]

But there...there  were not dog bites.

We are venturing into Q'Anon territory here. [/quote]

In the first trial, a doctor who specialized in dog bites said they appeared to be dog bites and she’d like to match the teeth with the dog. But the dog was coincidentally rehomed.

You think a medical expert is the same as Q Anon? Weird. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics