Scott Petterson gets death

mojo · #1 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

good riddance.

dapimpstress · #2 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

wow, this will really set a precident for future abortion cases similar to it.

krisamata · #3 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

^^^ it wasnt an abortion case.

Jblaze · #4 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Its in California... It will be a long long time b4 he is actually killed or if that is even guna happen for that matter.

miss.myra · #5 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

must..resist....giving..opinion...on death penalty....

dapimpstress · #6 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by krisamata

^^^ it wasnt an abortion case.

i realize that dear, it will set a precident due to the fact that he was found guilty of murdering his wife with her unborn baby. lacy gets first degree, second degree for connor.

wum · #7 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

sometimes death is preferable to life. and this is a precedent for abortion? i never even considered that! wow.

.muffy. · #8 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashes

i realize that dear, it will set a precident due to the fact that he was found guilty of murdering his wife with her unborn baby. lacy gets first degree, second degree for connor.

That has NOTHING to do with "setting precident" for abortion cases to follow.
Abortions performed in a medical clinic, while some people find it to be morally wrong, is still LEGAL
Murdering your wife and unborn child so that you can run off and have hump your mistress isn't

As for Scott Petterson getting the death penalty, I personally think he deserves it.

wum · #9 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by .daisy.

That has NOTHING to do with "setting precident" for abortion cases to follow.
Abortions performed in a medical clinic, while some people find it to be morally wrong, is still LEGAL
Murdering your wife and unborn child so that you can run off and have hump your mistress isn't

As for Scott Petterson getting the death penalty, I personally think he deserves it.

So really they're only prosecuting the death of the unborn child as a murder because it didn't follow exacting medical procedure and standards? like he didn't use gloves and scalpel? lol.

I think after this case an anti-abortionist could gain some leverage. like saying, "what's the intrinsic difference between a medical procedure and a murder when the result is the same?" Lack of an MD certificate? This could open a can of worms most def.

miss.myra · #10 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Perhaps, but when the bodies were discovered, the infants body was discovered first- meaning it was seperate from the mother.

It is still technically a fetus until the mother has given birth to the child, so I think that is why the second degree murder was introduced to the case.

wum · #11 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Perhaps, but when the bodies were discovered, the infants body was discovered first- meaning it was seperate from the mother.

It is still technically a fetus until the mother has given birth to the child, so I think that is why the second degree murder was introduced to the case.

Wasn't the baby still inside the womb?

pporpentine9 · #12 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

i admit i don't know many of the specifics of this case.

but it seems to set a very dangerous precedent.
prosecuting someone for "murdering" a fetus ("murder" being a word that applies only to the killing of a "person" as the word is defined legally <not biologically>) might provide some feeling of vindication for individual cases, but i think setting a precedent like that is very very shortsighted and will cause no end of trouble in the future.

-lauren

miss.myra · #13 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

Wasn't the baby still inside the womb?

I think the speculation from the autopsies had something to do with the fact that the child's body was found seperately and mutilated. Remember, the specific results of the autopsies were sealed so the public will never know exactly what happened. What IS fact is that the child's body washed ashore a few days before the mother's was, so it was discovered separately.

pporpentine9 · #14 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

oh, and the obligatory "death penalty is wrong" post.

in lieu of the death penalty, i feel that those who have been given outrageously long prison sentences (ie. consecutive life sentences and suchlike) should be informed of the fact that they will never ever see the light of day again ever. their cell should come equipped with a cyanide pill. it's only fair.

-lauren

wum · #15 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss.myra

I think the speculation from the autopsies had something to do with the fact that the child's body was found seperately and mutilated. Remember, the specific results of the autopsies were sealed so the public will never know exactly what happened. What IS fact is that the child's body washed ashore a few days before the mother's was, so it was discovered separately.

i see. but another argument for 'human life' of the fetus is development and viability. If he killed it before the second trimester (?) then he can't be convicted of killing something that's simply 'not human.'

BAL1STOPHER · #16 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

if i was this scum bag id be thankfull i get the chair...it beats living the rest of your life in prison being a bitch for bubba...

pporpentine9 · #17 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

^
i'm pretty sure that no one is considered a legal person until AFTER they are born.

-lauren

Akeel · #18 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

kill em all! let god sort em out!

Akeel · #19 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by pporpentine9

^
i'm pretty sure that no one is considered a legal person until AFTER they are born.

-lauren

Thats true in canada, a fetus has no rights and is not a person till it has been born....not sure what the deal is in the US of A

wum · #20 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by pporpentine9

^
i'm pretty sure that no one is considered a legal person until AFTER they are born.

-lauren

well it seems like this ruling to convict Scott of TWO murders reverses that decision.

miss.myra · #21 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

i see. but another argument for 'human life' of the fetus is development and viability. If he killed it before the second trimester (?) then he can't be convicted of killing something that's simply 'not human.'

Uhh, I've already laid out why the child got second degree murder charges.

I'm not going neaaaaar that argument with a 10 foot pole.

miss.myra · #22 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

well it seems like this ruling to convict Scott of TWO murders reverses that decision.

I guess you ignored the point I made several times? Or?

wum · #23 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

^ Well you said it's considered two murders since the bodies were found seperately. At the same time, if the fetus was killed before the viability stage (second trimester), then you could use that as a basis for equating abortion with murder since they are at the same level of development. Just because the fetus was found separate from the woman, doesn't seem like a huge difference to me.

miss.myra · #24 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

Um, if you actually read up on the trial the woman was 8 months pregnant. Also, I've indicated several times that the results of the autopsy will not be revealed to the public, and I hiiighly doubt they'd slap these chages on the guy just to stir the public opnion a little- they were pressed for a reason.

Pls stop using this tragedy as an opportunity to grandstand your beliefs.

I'm trying to explain WHY these charges were laid in the first place, and your rebuttal is nothing but vague references to your own belief set/opinon.

Ragga_Wh0re · #25 (**permalink**) Dec 13, 04

i dont think he deserves death,i think he deserves to be tortured...until hes hanging on by a string...and then revived again and then tortured some more and then revived and tortured.

yeah.:)