That's why we have juries and judges and appeals.

In this instance we were discussing how many times a DA would go against the recommendations of the investigating officer in terms of charging someone other than what they recommended. I would say never, never heard it happen even one time. In terms of how often is the officer correct? I'd guess 99% of the time. My area never had a conviction overturned, so ours was 100%. However, I heard of cases in other areas where they were wrong. But it was rare. However, in LA there were rampant rumors about fake and "put together" cases. That just shows the importance of management and oversight.

It differs by state and drug cases were not my area, however if someone had given a sample and was in the midst of a larger deal you could make a case for a felony. The reason they wait is because they want a larger case and penalty.

Ok, did you follow that uo by using a gun to kidnap someone, steal their car and then run a road block?

Actually them being a murderer while commiting a felony isn't my definition, but that of almost every state in the union. I was just making the case that he was involved in a felony. In terms of her, she could be labled a murderer as well. In terms of why her penalty was less harsh. She didn't have a criminal record, she wasn't found with the gun in her possession, she didn't participate in a kidnapping, etc etc. Plus on appeal it was apparent her conviction would be overturned. It was an old case and the DA didn't want to go through another trial with all of the new contradictions that had come up.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

So it was part of the case, it just happened after the murder. So again, this points to his guilt. Innocent people don't kidnap others in order to run away. Those are the traits of a guilty man on probation who knows he's going back to jail. When you ran after your friend said run did you kidnap someone? How many innocent people do you really think would kidnap someone?

We're not going to change each other's mind (I guess that rarely happens on boards anyway) or convince each other one of us is right. We can continue to go back and forth or agree to disagree. In any event, I will do the courtesy of reading and replying. Haven't had this lengthy of a conversation on this board in a while.

I'll add, I can understand your position and why you feel the way you do, I just personally disagree. If you want to talk about legal reform including improving on public defenders, then that might be an area where we would agree more.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Too bad so many juries get finagled.


Hmm. Interesting. 99% of the time.

Marvin Horton, the police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of the (David Spence) crime, stated: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime."

And Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who investigated the murders, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved."

Police officers are correct 99% of the time. So I suppose these two officers who are intimately involved in that case fit into that magic 1% who are wrong about their own case?

Obtaining a sample would be a felony which did not cause the officer's murder. And unfortunately they were not in the middle of a larger deal. As far as the law is concerned they were not yet guilty of a felony crime even if they were going to commit one in the near future.

No, but I ran from the police. Isn't that a determinant of guilt in your opinion? I must have been guilty.

So why on earth did the State of Florida, no doubt a group of intelligent people, release her? If she is a murderer in terms of law by committing a felony which caused a death? It is not logical.

It doesn't matter. According to the definition you provided, she is a murderer. Yet before her life term was completed she was set free. Why do you suppose that is? How can we account for that?

I do not doubt that your mind will not be changed, but it is a good discussion. I actually learned about cases I did not know about before where people who did not commit murder were sentenced to death and were executed.

I am referring to your definition of murder which is that if you are involved in a felony and that crime is the cause of a death it is murder. Well the kidnapping would not apply for obvious reasons, it occurred after the fact. And kidnapping is not a capital offense although it is a serious felony.

__________________
lambaste me not

Could be, they originally presented evidence as to his guilt (or someone from the police did). So someone was wrong.

They were in the middle of it, and in fact drug conspiracy is a crime in Florida. Dajuan Wager, plays in the NBA, his Dad was found guilty of it. He wasn't in the middle of it at the time of his arrest, but had guns and other items to work his operation.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-369439.html

It is a determinant, maybe you were 16 at the time. Adults don't run when they have nothing to fear. But it just adds to the fact that they not only ran, but kidnapped someone, stole a car, etc.

Sure it is, I just explained several scenarios as to why she was released. You don't really think she's the first person in American history who was released after serving a long time in jail because witnesses disappeared, evidence was lost, witnesses changed their story, etc do you?

Easy, not every criminal gets the same sentence for the same crime. There are other factors involved. As the judge stated when he gave him the death penalty there were other mitigating factors, all of which I listed. You think if you and I went out and killed someone and you had no prior record and I had 12 felony convictions and prison time we would get identical sentences?

Again, that is not my definition. I already posted the statute, it clearly said that if someone is killed while in the commission of a felony you are guilty of murder. The kidnapping does not apply, but if that person had died accidently while kidnapped that, by definition in every state I know of, IS murder.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Look at the quote again from Ramone Salinas: ""My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved."

In order to prove that Ramone and Jacobs are murderers you would need to establish that they had committed a felony, see below:

"Painfully shy but rolling in more money than he had ever seen, Aikens found drugs during his first year with the Angels.

"I used during the World Series," Aikens said. "But it was just something I did whenever I got the chance."

In 1983, a FBI agent visited the Royals' clubhouse and warned the team they were tapped into a prominent drug dealer's phone and that calling him would be a mistake.

It was a warning shot that four players failed to heed.

Aikens, Jerry Martin, Vida Blue and Willie Wilson were arrested and charged with conspiracy to buy drugs over the phone, a misdemeanor."

I was of legal age. And since I had broken no law, it was not a determinant. Running from the police does imply guilt but it is not written in stone and it is not conclusive.

She was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Then she was released before serving her term. Why would a murderer be set free and not tried again for lack of evidence? The only evidence need to prove she was a murderer is the fact that there was some sort of drug deal happening at the time of the event that she was committing a felony and the fact that someone was murdered as a result of it. Plain and simple. Yet free she remains.


I know. I'll rephrase for fairness. The definition you provided.

True but this did not occur. Nobody died as a result of a kidnapping after the officers were dead.

We both disagree, but know where each other stands. Thank you for a civilized debate. I am pretty convinced that these two men died unfairly although they were not good guys by any means. I am pleased that we didn't get involved with a lot of ad homonym attacks as happens alot on this forum.

__________________
lambaste me not

Then who did? Obviously someone presented the evidence,

That's great, but penalties differ by state. I'm not sure what state your quote references, but mine about Wagner's father referenced Florida and per the article he was found guilty of drug conspiracy, a felony.

Then it's anecdotal and you're one in a million. It is not enough to determine guilt, but it is definitely strong cicrumstantial evidence of it. Especially when combined with his other actions.

I think I've made this clear. There are numerous mitigating circumstances. She didn't have a record and they felt she wasn't as active a participant, after 15 years (or whatever it was) they couldn't locate evidence, witnesses disappeared and/or changed their story...there are numerous reasons why she is free none of which necessarily means she was innocent.

Ok, but it wasn't a definition. It was a state statute. Meaning by law it is a crime.

Thank you as well, I disagree but as you said it's nice not to attack just because we disagree. Your posts were respectful, no attacks were necessary.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Regarding our discussion about whether conspiracy to sell drugs is a crime. One of the Darwin Awards in Boston went to some 20 year old who kept calling the cell phone of a cop to sell drugs (apparently he had a wrong number). After a few conversations he met the guy and arrested him on the spot for "conspiracy to violate drug laws." Nothing had been sold at the time because the kid knew he had the wrong person once he saw the cop, even though in plain clothes. So conspiracy was the charge and conspiracy was the conviction.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Notice how the person calling the cell phone was actively attempting to sell, which is part of the deal. He wasn't sleeping in his car. I doubt that same officer could have arrested him if he was sleeping in his car because that is not a felony. Besides, you never mentioned whether or not he was convicted of a felony, or whether the same laws apply to Florida.

__________________
lambaste me not

no, but saying I'm going to sell drugs isn't a crime and that isn't what he was convicted of. It was the steps he took to do so. It was a felony and I don't know whether the same laws apply in Florida, each state is different. However, it is likely.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

In order to know whether what they were doing was a felony, we would need to know the criteria for determining it. For example, the drug seller was calling and actively attempting to sell. The fact that he had no drugs on him may not matter in Mass, but maybe it does in Florida. If you are caught with a bundle of drugs, you can be convicted of intent to sell. But intent to purchase laws may be drastically different.

__________________
lambaste me not