Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Mississippi makes progress (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unknown (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justiceputnam

    if he is guilty or not.  I get tired of seeing everyone forgetting about innocent until proven guilty.

    I still like your tweet, but then I have a gritty sense of humor.

    Anyway, I've read the trial transcripts, and I really think it's impossible to say what's even likely at this point.

    There has been a lot of incorrect info quoted in the press.  His defense team proved several important errors in the police reporting.

    •  He admitted he killed her, the only question (0+ / 0-)

      of presumption is about the definition of premeditation.

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        there is more to it than that.  It's about whether it was a mistake and he was shooting at an intruder, or whether he purposefully killed Reena.

        The premeditation is an additional factor.

        •  Seriously? He shot into a locked bathroom cabinet, (0+ / 0-)

          didn't he? You want to play devil's advocate? Explain how the intruder got in the house and lock themselves in the bathroom while his gfriend was somehow not around.

          •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

            you might consider that you are trying him before all of the evidence has been provided.

            That's my point.  

            Why a supposedly progressive person would maintain your stance is hard for me to understand.

            In answer to your question, there was an open window in the bathroom, supposedly.

            Once the case comes to court, we will know what the evidence in, and can make an informed opinion.  Prior to that, you are only getting a tiny slice of the evidence.

            •  There was an open window in the toilet closet? (0+ / 0-)

              support your assertion with actual facts and sources please.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:41:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sick of the nonsense arguments (0+ / 0-)

          I fully believe in a presumption of innocence.

          Blade runner's own story belies an intent to kill with a deadly weapon.

          The idea that any man can simply claim that he was afraid, and then shoot multiple shots into a small locked cabinet, and be considered innocent of intent is ludicrous. The toilet compartment is small and totally protected! If he thought there was an intruder in there he still had no right to shoot the intruder. He could have called the police and kept his gun trained on the door and waited for the police to come and take the intruder away.

          But he didn't. He most certainly shot multiple rounds with an intent to kill, someone. The only question is whether he planned in advance to kill HER.

          The corrupt detective, guilty of shooting at people in public, charged with 7 counts of attempted murder, is on the case to throw it FOR Blade runner. What a sham.

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            Nonsense argument?

            I do not consider 'innocent until proven guilty' to be a nonsense argument.

            Your writing shows that you have made a number of unfounded determinations.  

            •  You missed the point (0+ / 0-)

              My objection is to all these exta-judicial killings as "justifiable homicide" cases based on someone simply claiming fear/self defense! That's the part of this case that looks like nonsense to me.

              A fair trial is not possible if a corrupt police force puts a corrupt detective in charge of the investigation. No matter what evidence is collected, it's all tainted, in part because the corrupt cop made sure it was tainted, by not following standard evidence gathering.

              The shooter's statements may or may not be true. He is still entitled to be assumed innocent by a judge and jury and tried in a court where he gets to mount a defense against all the evidence. The cops gave the defense a whole bunch of easy attack points.

              I don't know whether the shooter's reported statements are true or not. I'm not on his jury, and I have no impact on his future. I'm entitled to form an opinion about corrupt prosecutions that, in my opinion, are known to throw the case for the shooter.

              Based on the layout of the house, and adding the shooter's statements (not the police statements) I formed an opinion. Based on my reading some press I formed an opinion about the police.

              YMMV

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:53:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I consider this (0+ / 0-)

                to be a reasonable comment, and a reasonable discussion.

                My opinion is that the evidence is not all known to us yet, and that he is innocent until proven guilty.

                I'd like to see links to your continued assertion that the corrupt police force purposefully put a corrupt detective in charge, and that "the corrupt cop made sure it was tainted, by not following standard evidence gathering."

                •  About intent to kill (0+ / 0-)

                  Reasonable people can disagree, and comments on a blog are not a total treatise of one's thinking on a subject.

                  You wrote:

                  It's about whether it was a mistake and he was shooting at an intruder, or whether he purposefully killed Reena.
                  There is a gap in there - do you see it?

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:28:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You asserted there is a window (0+ / 0-)

                  so you can assemble links to the evidence you thinks warrants your assertion. I'm not interested in further hashing over the case, or discussing police evidentiary rules in SA. (I did not save links).

                  But I'll leave you with these thoughts:

                  The definition of premeditation must include consideration of his behavior, whether he intended to kill the intruder, not only whether he intended to kill the person he in fact did admit killing.

                  If you are following the story and want to champion the shooter's right to laws that may not exist in his country, then you may be promoting civil rights in a place they does need them as much as we do. I would applaud you for that.

                  If it is, then that "window in the bathroom" that you threw out is an important detail you might want to really pin that  down. My opinion is that it doesn't really matter.

                  If you are correct, and there was a window in the toilet closet, and it was large enough for the intruder to escape, wouldn't that also undermine the shooter's asserted fear of being in imminent danger?

                  Wouldn't it be more plausible that he woke to the sound of someone in the house, picked up his gun from under the bed. Saw that Reena was sleeping soundly, or didn't notice her at all, and proceeded down the hall (which is not very long). He might have heard the toilet door shut and lock - (I read that it was locked).

                  It there was a window through with the shooter could leave the house, it would be like shooting someone as they are running out the back door?  So in my opinion, whether he shot bullets (how many 3, 4?) into a locked closet, or he shot bullets into a locked closet with a window egress, in NEITHER scenario was he in imminent danger.

                  There was also a long gap before he called the police and there were 2 iphones and 2 blackberries recovered. But he also had another cell phone that neither he nor his defense made available to the police.

                  Those details were all part of forming my opinion about whether his confession made any sense, or whether the confession had been coerced.

                  Good luck with your civil rights advocacy.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:33:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My opinion is that the evidence is not all known (0+ / 0-)

                  That is an unfortunate fact - the evidence will never be all known because of what he did and what the police did.

                  Between the shooting and the bail hearing a lot of evidence was contaminated or destroyed.

                  The case will be tried on contaminated evidence, departures from normal practice, involvement of people with serious credibility issues. It's a mess they have there. And if they have an appeals process like we do, it may already be that even if he is convicted he'll be let off on appeal because of the police.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:39:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  [It] is an unfortunate fact [that] the evidence (0+ / 0-)

                    I agree that it's certainly not possible at this stage to know all the evidence.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:49:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Nope - I haven't made any determinations (0+ / 0-)

              It's not my job to make determinations.

              You don't have to understand my opinion. And you can judge my political values as much as you want - you're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.

              Enjoy your soapbox.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:09:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's pretty obvious (0+ / 0-)

                who's on a soapbox here.  

                All of your statements to the contrary, this is what you said:

                "He admitted he killed her, the only question of presumption is about the definition of premeditation."

                You stated this as fact.  It is not.

                Now, your comment above this does state that this is your opinion.  That is a reasonable statement.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site