The Goat Pen

the trafficking is inconsequential. They had enough heroin to supply multiple people that were there. I didn't want to give all the details of the story because this grand jury stuff is supposed to be secret.

The point was that if we believed - by indicting him that he did indeed traffic the heroin - which he confessed to- then he also supplied the drugs that killed the victim.

We could make a moral objection to the law being unfair (which we did in the first vote) but we were reminded that isn't our place, our place is to indict on two basic concepts - did a crime occur, and is it likely the person in question is the one who committed it. As he read the law I believe I had little recourse than to agree that those two indeed did happen.

If I did get played, well so be it - I objected to the law and my questioning of the law was what led to people to not rubber stamp it in the first place and not vote to indict. The D.A. felt he had to "educate" us on the difference between not liking a law and upholding it, and our responsibility at jurors.

But I do agree, we are a rubber stamp. But I also know that maybe 1/2 of the arrests ever make it to the grand jury with the idea that if there is a realistic chance of one of these nickel and dime cases getting found not guilty, they don't pursue it to begin with. Maybe one case out of 20 doesn't have a full confession.

Everyone knows that you can die from using drugs.

assumption of risk. far as he knew he was delivering good drugs. if he altered the drugs or knew they were bunk then the prosecutor would have a case. imo. I'm not trying to argue that case as if I know anything about the law.

This is an ugly turn of events. Somewhere, I just know a single tear is streaming down Ron Paul's face. I join Mr. Paul in rebuking eMilquetoast

The point was that if we believed - by indicting him that he did indeed traffic the heroin - which he confessed to- then he also supplied the drugs that killed the victim.

so the law is that if you supply an illegal drug then you are responsible for any consequences arising from said drug deal?

I feel the same way - a junkie took drugs and O.D.'d - there is an inherent risk he assumed and the other guy was just the supplier - no more a criminal in his death than a pharmacist who might have given him a bottle of tylenol that he emptied out or a bartender that gave him 12 shots of everclear

but the guy confessed to supplying him with the drug that killed him

and the way the law is written, that is involuntary manslaughter.

eCat wrote:so you guys think Michael Jackson's doctor is innocent?

He should have had his license suspended and never been allowed to practice medicine anywhere again. But he wasn't guilty of murder or manslaughter or such. MJ kilt hisself more or less... plus that doctor did more to protect the children of America than JoePa ever did.

AlabamAlum wrote:This is an ugly turn of events. Somewhere, I just know a single tear is streaming down Ron Paul's face. I join Mr. Paul in rebuking eMilquetoast

you're just fucking with me now

eCat wrote:I feel the same way - a junkie took drugs and O.D.'d - there is an inherent risk he assumed and the other guy was just the supplier - no more a criminal in his death that a pharmacist who might have given him a bottle of tylenol that he emptied out or a bartender that gave him 12 shots of everclear

but the guy confessed to supplying him with the drug that killed him

and the way the law is written, that is involuntary manslaughter.

so once again the problem isnt with the action itself but with the law that says this action under these circumstances is ok, while under different circumstances it is illegal and guess what, we get to determine which circumstances are ok and which are not ok based on who's put the most money in our pockets lately.

eCat wrote:so you guys think Michael Jackson's doctor is innocent?

Innocent of what? He definitely was negligent in Jackson's death.

I mean, I love hoes as much as the next man, but if YOU'RE administering possibly fatal drugs to a guy paying you a buck twenty a month for care, then you stick around in the room long enough to know if the dose is killing him.

eCat wrote:so you guys think Michael Jackson's doctor is innocent?

of criminal charges, yes. negligence, malpractice? that's a whole 'nother issue.

eCat wrote:so you guys think Michael Jackson's doctor is innocent?

NO!

Michael Jackson was dosing himself with the Diprovan. Im a firm believer that everyone should be accountable for their own weaknesses. The doctor should have walked away, though, with a "Mr. Jackson, you're gonna kill yourself - but I will not be a part of it."

I thought it was determined that MJ did not administer any medications himself. Or, at least, investigators could find no evidence that he self-administered anything.

An open vial of Diprovan in a slit open IV bag? No medical person would do that.

AugustWest wrote:

eCat wrote:I feel the same way - a junkie took drugs and O.D.'d - there is an inherent risk he assumed and the other guy was just the supplier - no more a criminal in his death that a pharmacist who might have given him a bottle of tylenol that he emptied out or a bartender that gave him 12 shots of everclear

but the guy confessed to supplying him with the drug that killed him

and the way the law is written, that is involuntary manslaughter.

so once again the problem isnt with the action itself but with the law that says this action under these circumstances is ok, while under different circumstances it is illegal and guess what, we get to determine which circumstances are ok and which are not ok based on who's put the most money in our pockets lately.

that may very well be the case - I'm at the mercy of the D.A. telling us what the law is.I've learned more than I've ever wanted to know about the difference between B&E, Burglary and Theft

E, you only at the mercy of the DA insomuch as you allow yourself to be. As I said before, smile and nod during his dog and pony show, fuck him in the ass regarding the verdict and on your way out remind him that Clermont County ain't shit.

I'll strive to be more independent in my actions

I prefer reading eCat in its original German.

eCat wrote:
that may very well be the case - I'm at the mercy of the D.A. telling us what the law is.I've learned more than I've ever wanted to know about the difference between B&E, Burglary and Theft

I understand and it's easy for me to play devils advocate from a keyboard, it just seems to me that there's an obvious disconnect between supplying a product and manslaughter, and the DA telling you that you should indict for manslaughter because he's admitted to "trafficking" is a stretch at best and an abuse of power at worse. was representation for the defendant present during the DA's talk? (showing my ignorance)

AlabamAlum wrote:I prefer reading eCat in its original German.

Well played.