More female privilege

[laughing dog]

You are fooling yourself. Again, do you know of any man not convicted in a similar case? I.e. murder for hire where the offer was on tape.

You are the one making an unsubstantiated positive claim of fact, not me. I'd say that your claim about the necessary conviction of a man in the same situation represents your biases and nothing else.

Her claim does not make any sense. Play-acting requires both parties to be in on it. If you tell a cop (whom you think is an undercover agent) that you are 5000% sure you want your husband dead and offer him money to murder him, it is ridiculous to say that she did not mean it. The only reason you deny her excuse's ridiculousness is that she is a woman.

I am not making any judgment about her claim. And I could say that only reason you think her claim must be ridiculous is because she is a woman.

How about answering the actual question - if her claim is true, should she be found innocent? Yes or no.

- - - Updated - - -

The condensed version of your argument is "Woman is guilty because she is a woman."

No, she is guilty because she offered an undercover cop money to murder her husband.

Wait a minute. I simply condensed your argument. Now, if you can see that it was unfair or inaccurate, why can't you see that your condensation of Jarhyn's argument was unfair or inaccurate?

 

[Bronzeage]

I doubt that is even possible. I have read an article in Psychology Today which said that women have a "double-bind" when it comes to choosing partners. Those they are attracted to they do not consider good long term relationship material and those they consider good long term relationship material they are not attracted to.

However, be assured, if it were in my power, I would give it a shot, if only to shut you up.

Give a shot at what?

You over estimate your powers of extra sensory perception. I never said I thought she was innocent, or might be innocent, your attempt to read my mind, not withstanding.

But you still advocate her possibly getting off scot-free?

In any case, your concern over being murdered by a hired killer is greatly overblown, and your indictment of women in general is unwarranted.

I agree the chances are small. I have not 'indicted' women in general of being murderers. My point is that the society treats murderous women with kid gloves, giving them lesser punishments than they would a man in the same situation, and often let them off with no punishment at all.

When did I "advocate her possibly getting off scot-free?" Please stop formulating other people's arguments for them.

Stay out of Psychology Today. It's like getting gardening advice from Road and Track.

It may come as a shock, but women are a lot like men. Sometimes they are attracted to people who would make a terrible long term partner, but it doesn't really matter, unless you're looking for long term partner.

In my life, I've had really nice short term relationships with women. They were fun, the sex was great, but they're not around anymore. Why? Because they weren't long term relationship material. It wasn't any kind of flaw in them. I know a few of them and they appear to be quite happy with some other guy.

As for your point, whatever you think you said, what comes across in your words is, 'women are dangerous and you are completely justified in not having any in your life.'

 

[Angry Floof]

Derec, calm down and have some nice soothing vagina cake.

 

[LordKiran]

Derec, calm down and have some nice soothing vagina cake.

View attachment 9030

Should have put a candle in it with just the wick sticking out. Maybe some drops of red food coloring for flair.

 

[Angry Floof]

Wasn't asking for vagina cake pro tips, but thanks I guess.

 

[RavenSky]

I believe men and women should face equal punishment for equal crimes. .

Like hell you do

 

[Ford]

I believe men and women should face equal punishment for equal crimes. .

Like hell you do

Well to be fair, women are all evil...especially the black ones.

 

[barbos]

From what I've read in other threads, this indicates she was 'overcharged'

That and the case introduces a lot of reasonable doubt:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...lito-just-playing-a-role-for-cops-ride-along/

I would not call it reasonable. Her husband and "hitman" don't support her story and police is sure as hell would not be playing her games.

 

[Jarhyn]

The condensed version of your argument is "Woman is guilty because she is a woman."

No, she is guilty because she offered an undercover cop money to murder her husband.
Did you even watch the videos?

P.S.: Despite being on house arrest she managed to get herself knocked up. I wonder who the baby daddy is. My guess would be the smarmy lawyer from her press conference.

You beg the question here. You say she offered a cop money to MURDER her husband, and in so saying, you assume it is murder.

Then you slut shame her.

������

Edit: and this coming from the guy who hires prostitutes, sex slaves, and rapes them. Oh, wait, you don't like me calling it rape when you do it? Do you not like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

Or is that dismal? I can never tell which is which with you two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have the evidence that a jury of her peers already failed to convict her once, which indicates at least some of the facts presented to them pointed to the idea that she is 'innocent'. You keep saying 'women abuse men too'. Well women kill men, too, but looking at the actual numbers, they indicate that women are far more likely to be abused, with 1/7 men being abused severely vs 1/4 women, and like it or not, people who are taking testosterone get bigger and angrier on average than those who don't.

Actually, it doesn't. It's quite possible for a juror to vote "not guilty" even when they think the person probably did it. The thing is a jury is expected to vote "not guilty" unless they're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. We have a case here where the police seem to have fucked up fairly badly. Without that it seems pretty open and shut but when the police fuck up a case badly it's a lot harder to reach that beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

 

[ZiprHead]

Did you miss the part where she has been recorded hiring the fake hit man? That's incontrovertible evidence. Obviously the 3 jurors refused to convict because of female privilege. Ignore the evidence and assume the female is innocent even if she is guilty as sin beyond all conceivable doubt, much less reasonable one.

You would be praising the jury if it was a cop that murdered a suspect.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be open about my views on this, I saw some clips on television a while ago and she seemed guilty as all hell to me. But that's a different process than a court room. A television production process has the benefit of snipping what they don't like and presenting the crazy stuff--a COPs show after all is a reality TV show. Now jury selection for this case would not include a person like me who has an opinion and saw the TV show video. They'd want fresh eyes to look at all the evidence and in its full context. I can't possibly know what all that evidence is. I also know there are very stupid people and very lazy people out there. So did they want to get out quickly, were they too dumb to get it, was it really because she was a woman ala Derec's hobby horse, OR did the three jurors see something in the evidence and/or argumentation from the defense that they viewed as reasonable doubt? I am not asking for an argument to try to prove one of these scenarios because I don't think we have the evidence to argue them in this thread.

 

[Derec]

To be open about my views on this, I saw some clips on television a while ago and she seemed guilty as all hell to me. But that's a different process than a court room. A television production process has the benefit of snipping what they don't like and presenting the crazy stuff--a COPs show after all is a reality TV show. Now jury selection for this case would not include a person like me who has an opinion and saw the TV show video. They'd want fresh eyes to look at all the evidence and in its full context. I can't possibly know what all that evidence is. I also know there are very stupid people and very lazy people out there. So did they want to get out quickly, were they too dumb to get it, was it really because she was a woman ala Derec's hobby horse, OR did the three jurors see something in the evidence and/or argumentation from the defense that they viewed as reasonable doubt? I am not asking for an argument to try to prove one of these scenarios because I don't think we have the evidence to argue them in this thread.

Given that her excuse ("I was just playing") is laughable, it must be because she is a woman.
Hopefully she gets convicted next time around, but after all this is the state that acquitted Casey Anthony so I am not holding too much hope.

 

[Derec]

You would be praising the jury if it was a cop that murdered a suspect.

Wrong. If a cop actually murdered a suspect he should be convicted. Or (to resemble this case), if a cop tried to hire a hit man to murder a suspect and was caught on video trying to do that he should be convicted. And this bitch should be too.

Police shootings in the line of duty are usually justified, and very rarely amount to a murder. Yet to #BLMers any police shooting of a black suspect is automatically a "murder".

 

[Derec]

Actually, it doesn't. It's quite possible for a juror to vote "not guilty" even when they think the person probably did it. The thing is a jury is expected to vote "not guilty" unless they're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. We have a case here where the police seem to have fucked up fairly badly. Without that it seems pretty open and shut but when the police fuck up a case badly it's a lot harder to reach that beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Why do you think "police fucked up pretty badly"? I know her shysters are claiming that, but then again of course they would as they have no other possible avenue of defense given that their client is guilty as sin. That video has her dead to rights.
I do not see how anybody can watch her say she wants that guy to murder her husband and not come to the conclusion that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Derec]

You beg the question here. You say she offered a cop money to MURDER her husband, and in so saying, you assume it is murder.

How would you call it? Oh yes, she is a woman, so you think she is entitled to kill her boyfriends and husbands just by playing the victim.

Then you slut shame her.

No, I am not. She should be in prison instead of having sex while under house arrest. That has nothing to do with "slut shaming". A non-murderous woman can have all the sex she wants as far as I care.

Edit: and this coming from the guy who hires prostitutes, sex slaves, and rapes them. Oh, wait, you don't like me calling it rape when you do it? Do you not like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

Very different. You said that women "sometimes" have the right to murder their boyfriends and husbands, hiding behind circumlocutions like "those that lack testosterone".
I on the other hand only have consensual sex.

 

[laughing dog]

I do not see how anybody can watch her say she wants that guy to murder her husband and not come to the conclusion that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you believe that all TV shows are real?

 

[Derec]

Do you believe that all TV shows are real?

She was not a cast member of a TV show when she tried to hire a hit man to murder her husband.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you believe that all TV shows are real?

She was not a cast member of a TV show when she tried to hire a hit man to murder her husband.

She says she was making the equivalent of an audition tape for Cops which is a TV show. Now, there are people who believe what they see on TV or the Internet. You said you did not see how anyone could believe it. Well, all you have to do is actually look around you and see humanity. Doesn't mean she is telling the truth.

The prosecution gets another bite at the apple. Clearly they need to do a better job at presenting a convincing case.

 

[Jarhyn]

How would you call it? Oh yes, she is a woman, so you think she is entitled to kill her boyfriends and husbands just by playing the victim.

Then you slut shame her.

No, I am not. She should be in prison instead of having sex while under house arrest. That has nothing to do with "slut shaming". A non-murderous woman can have all the sex she wants as far as I care.

Edit: and this coming from the guy who hires prostitutes, sex slaves, and rapes them. Oh, wait, you don't like me calling it rape when you do it? Do you not like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

Very different. You said that women "sometimes" have the right to murder their boyfriends and husbands, hiding behind circumlocutions like "those that lack testosterone".
I on the other hand only have consensual sex.

There you go again begging the question that it is murder.

So how is that raping of sex slaves working out for you. Rapedy rape rape rapey rape. Rape.


rape