I happened to catch a program on A&E regarding the recent trial of a Texas woman who was caught on
film running over her husband.

The husband was cheating on his wife with his office assistant. He had promised his wife on more than one occasion (4x) that he would put an end to the affair.

Well the wife hired a P.I. to trail hubby, low and behold the husband was out at Motel with mistress and was confronted by wife and daughter.

The wife attacked both husband and mistress in hotel lobby, and stormed out to parked car once staff broke altercation up and hubby left with mistress.

What I had not heard previously was that wife attempted to run over mistress striking Lincoln Navigator drivers side door and launching hubby into air 50 feet as he attempted to protect mistress.

Then wife commence to circle parking lot running over husband 4 times with Mercedes that had 6 inch clearance from ground. Captured on video by P.I. following hubby. Mind you daughter is in passenger seat of Mercedes.

I could not believe:

1) That this woman was released on $30,000.00 bond.

2) That the prosecutor did not seek Death Penalty in this case. (Commision of multiple felonies resulting in the loss of life not to mention premeditation)




Is it me, or did this well to do fairly attractive, white woman get a pass?????????

I think you play the nim-wit card. *cough*O.J.*cough*

If her skin color was black and she was driving a buick this woman would already be dead. It's Texas. The state motto is "If you are white and into evil then you are a friend of mine".

Blue, Phat, BluePhat, Blueballs, or whoever the hell your skitzo personality is talking at the moment. Do you post these white-bashing topics just to try and piss some white guys off in an attempt to instigate some type of racial arguments on this forum??

These posts are pathetic and really indicate someones desperate need for attention.

personally id say it has less to do with the color of her skin than whats between her legs



of those 10, 9 were white

http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib/femdeath.htm

Kiss off you little yuppie larva.
Go back to playing your mindless video games. Focus on the first person shooters so you can be good and ready to be fed into the meat grinder. Are you ready to die for my freedom?

WooHoo! Its on now!!

You are arguing politics on an Xbox forum. I'm sorry, but this insult just wont cut it. Replacement please.

Hey, but that insult cut deep .

oh come on...we all know that bluedeath/irish/xmedia start these threads as a joke

either they are the most disturbed, and politically confused individuals I have ever met......or they just like to argue meaningless crap

i would normally begin destroying his argument....but seriously....this has just become tiresome. No matter how wrong they are....they continue to hold the line.

It can be something as obvious as the theory of gravity....or something highly subjective like motive for murder. BTW....this is why I am almost positive that they are all the same person....they both have the highly undesirable trait of being totally wrong....and arguing about it till everyone else is exhausted.

I know that is the entire point of this section of xbox-scene....but seriously....its even sad for this little corner of the forum.

Bring back the "new post" feature....so that I can go back to actual posts....and ignore these sad twisted little men.

phatbluexdeathirishmediabastard2005?

Sad, but if a Man ran over a Woman with a car like that, the Man would get death penality easily.

FYI, puckSR, remember that post about racism a while back and you get personal about me? Don't be like Karl Rove: If you can't attack his/her argument, attack his/her character.

Edit: looks like she gets 20 years, 10 years good behavior...

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20...14-063734-3653r

pug_Ster.....first off the thread was about racism....and i called you a racist. I wasnt trying to get personal....it was still in the topic of the thread. It may not have been the nicest thing to do, but it wasnt purely personal....unless your talking about something else i said.

blue on the other hand....has referred to me with so many personally derogatory statements that it is obscene. He doesnt even bother to make points anymore....he just starts insulting me.

And you know that I am telling the truth about him being blatantly wrong several times. Several times he has had a combination of horrible information/bad judgement......and defended a completely incorrect point into the dirt.

I think you guys do a good enough job of posting race bashing topics unrooted in factuality.

I take it from your reponse you must have seen the video of the Mercedes circling like a shark with blood in the water so you have no pertinant comments to add.

Me trying to piss you off, never. Sorry I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of die casting everyone
that doesnt look like me into some type of urban legend.

Or maybe I should just play reruns of the OJ verdict smoke, and whine about life, negroes jews and mexicans everyday.

You sir are the just one of the hemmoroids on the anus of the white race, we hope to have you removed shortly.

P.S. Media ran the same smoke screen for our good buddy Scott Peterson, although I wouldnt have probably given him death based upon evidence of case. But I personally found the intial
coverage "germanic". If Entwistle would not have ran off he probably would have got the benifit of the "white" race card.

White race card?




The other type of Race card

An Iranian North Carolina student was arrested this week for attempted murder when he ran his SUV into a group of students on campus.

His bail was set at $ 2 million dollars, and no fatalities. The white broad bailed out on $ 30 K after her husband coughed up all his teeth on the pavement next to his brain matter.

yep...and the difference is??????

the woman attacked her husband....in a moment of obvious personal anger

the student attacked random students....in a moment of completely unknown motive

massive difference....only similarity is that they were both driving.....

you guys really need to get a grip on reality

Some one is DEAD

true......someone is dead in the case of the woman

and if they give this young man a harsher sentence than the woman.....I will agree with you that it is odd

unfortunately you are quoting "bail"
this is based on the flight risk, the severity of the crime, and the danger the individual poses to the general public.

I would assume that a young foreign student, who randomly tried to kill a group of pedestrians is a greater flight risk and a greater risk to the general community than a woman who got mad and murdered her husband.

If you disagree....please explain why?

Take his passport, he attends public school so his family probably isnt the wealthiest. Where is he going to go.



A killer is a killer, but since he isnt a killer point is irrelevant. The bail is highly excessive and I would argue keeping him in jail would benifit him more than community(so no hillbilly could attempt reprisal)

But I guess in your world, a wealthy white person that can go get money jump on a plane and be around the world isnt a flight risk, when the Mercedes she ran her husband over has higher monetary value than her bail posted.

[sarcasm]I see your logic. [/sarcasm]



No,
I am insinuating that 30K is a slap in the face of the husbands family.
I am insinuating that prosecutors have to much power. She deservingly could have faced death penalty given a motivated DA.

Given the offense of the student if it were not the fact he was Iranian in todays climate he would not neccesary face prison sentence with a decent lawyer, but of course being a sand negro they will attempt to make an example of him. This is agravated assault and battery, not premeditated agravated murder. <- Death Penalty eligible

He probably will get more time than the white bitch.

But you have to realize, this woman got the punishment she did because she discovered her husband was having an affair. She was betrayed by the person she should be trusting the most. I do agree, she should get more than 10 years good behavior, but nowhere NEAR life/death penalty. Sure, someone is dead and that is sad. I'm sure you could plead a little temporary insanity on this one, which I'm sure she at least suffered from a little.

Phatbastard....im going to try and explain this again.
The nature of the crime was different. She was not "fined" 30k.....her bail was 30k. It seems that the bail was appropriate....because she wound up back in court.
Her sentence has nothing to do with her bail.

I understand your position on prosecutor power....but the prosecution does not determine bail. The judge determines bail. So are you mad at the judge or at the prosecution?


great....but an excessively high bail doesnt say anything about prejudice. It just says that a particular judge decided to make the bail so high that the kid would sit in jail.

By the way....here is the story.
the whole story
The guy wasnt a student... he was an alumni
he was a terrorist(he claimed he was doing it to avenge the death of muslims around the world)
the bail was 5.5 million

You didnt want to post the story though....because you know that there are clear differences between what this guy did and what the "white" woman did. Motive goes a long way....and the motives of these two individuals are drastically different.



WRONG....since he claimed he did it to:
"avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."
I really dont think his country of origin matters....he basically claimed he was a terrorist(he indiscriminatly tried to kill one group to avenge another group).

Keep up the excellent reporting Irishbastard
Im sure a decent lawyer could get this kid off in a heartbeat:

Dude your opinion is your opinion but the letter of the law is the letter of the law.

In most states if you do A, B and C they are all felonies and someone dies in the process, that makes you eligible for the death penalty.

Nothing against her, nothing for the husband but it is a glaring discrepency. Maybe I watch foxnews and cnbc too much but 30K for premeditated, murder and essentially attempted murder of mistress. Then the Iranian smuck gets mutimillion dollar bail with not one serious injury. Fishy...






Mrs Debra Lafave,

Now the defense attorney, as well as prosecutor both believe that this school teacher was insane and does not deserve jail time, for essentially raping a young school boy.

No jail, HUH

RACE CARD

plus the all new powerful

VAGINAL CARD

1. Its just bail....its just a gut call by the judge....how much of a flight risk does the judge think the defendent poses
2. Yeah....iranian guy didnt cause one serious injury....but he is also an attempted terrorist
3. Ever hear of a crime of passion? Its when a highly emotional situation causes a crime to be committed. It usually means that the criminal did not premeditate the act. Your woman did not premeditate her act in the eyes of the law...and it was a crime of passion
4. The iranian guy is a flight risk....he isnt a "poor student"....he is a religious zealot...he attacked indiscriminately, so he is a greater danger to the public.



First...lets be honest....both the prosecution and the defense claimed that it was consenual...still statutory rape
Second....she is insane....but thats not why she didnt get jail time

Her accuser did not want to continue the trial, the prosecution plea-bargained with the defense because they were worried about the accuser dropping charges. This is a common event in highly-publicized rape cases.

In the USA you have the right to "face" your accuser....

Hope that clears everything up

isnt that what i said in the first place? the whole "race" issue is completely moot in both of these cases, its the fact that they are women that kept them both from severe penalties

I am sure the vaginal possesion is 4/10's the law, but to dismiss race perceptions is simply naive. I only mentioned two women, Scott Peterson was wrapped in the race card during his melodrama.

People are stuck on OJ half of the Kennedy family (men) have beaten some pretty serious wraps simply because.

The 2 womens cases are just so glaryingly apparrant.

The reason that people are stuck on OJ...and ignore the Kennedys has nothing to do with race
It has everything to do with publicity.

When a star football player, who is considered a really nice guy, is suddenly accused of murdering his wife and her boyfriend......we all sit up and pay attention

When a politician is accused of doing something dirty and underhanded....we kinda glaze over. We have heard it all a million times. There have been several cases of politicians accused of breaking the law. We all watched Bill Clinton for months.

The problem is that OJ's trial lasted for over a year....and he was accused of committing a truly heinous act.
The kennedys didnt get TV attention.....and we didnt pay attention

BTW....OJ is considered by most legal analysts as an example of a rich defendent having a much better chance than a poor defendent in the same position.



If you really want to make this case....why dont you compare their crimes and punishment to similiar circumstances and alternative results.

So far....you tried to compare the woman who murdered her husband with a vehicle to a guy that was on a mission from God and tried to run down random students on a college campus.

At least try to find similiar cases to make your example.

well, as i said before in this thread there have only be 10 women put to death in the last 30 years, of those, 9 were white, 1 was black, that is about the LEAST racist cross section your ever going to find anywhere in this country, i think its safe to say as far as female criminal go, skin color is nothing, their all pink inside

You can't rape the willing. Heck if that kid wasn't bragging and kept his mouth shut, he would still be on the gravy train. Any guy that says that he wouldn't hop on that is either a liar or would rather be on a fishing trip on Brokebutt Mountain.

And don't forget Pamela Rogers Turner.

You damn kids don't know how well you got it. All my teachers in in highschool were hags.

I now introduce you to the all new powerful
PENIS CARD



Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

Well she beat the rap, looks like vaginal card wins

nah....i would say that the "insensitivity to the concerns of the victim" card wins again.

She beat the rap because the kid dropped the charges....she wasnt acquitted...
originally they attempted to plea bargain the case....because the victim did not want to go to court
the only plea bargain that could be reached required no jail time for lafavre

the judge dismissed the plea because of the lack of jail time...which, in turn, caused the victim to drop the case.

This is a fairly common, but rather delicate issue with rape victims.
Often times the humiliation of a public trial is worse than the humiliation of the rape....especially in the case of statutory rape....when there may have been little to no humiliation during the actual act.

We cannot have someone stand trial without an accusor, and we cannot force people to bring charges against someone.....so until we solve this problem....this will happen a lot.

#1 She confessed num nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Only the prosecutor can drop "criminal" charges.

#2 He could have been compelled to testify, plus the kids "direct" admissions to police officers were enough alone. To hang her.

Man she must have sucked a lot of c*cks to beat this rap.

One Word

hmmm.....

remember this?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sound familiar?

The statements of the boy are inadmissible in court unless the witness repeats the statements. Otherwise...this is simpy hearsay. No prosecutor is going to continue pursuing a crime when the accusor "drops charges". It would be ridiculous....i suppose that you could force the young man to testify....but that would most likely lead to perjury if he had already indicated that he didnt want to pursue the matter any further. This of course would become an instance of turning the victim of the crime into a victim of the legal proceedings.

Face it....the reason that this woman got off was probably a combination of her rather attractive appearance, her mental disorder...and the fact that no 15 year old boy wants to publicly admit that he regrets having sex with his hot teacher.

But remember....she still got punished....she just got off light because a stupid judge threw out a plea bargain....

I am sure you realize that we do convict defendants in "absentia" here in the US.

Secondly, it is not unheard of to play tapes of dead people our read transcripts from confession and interviews that is why they are taped and signed documents.


Hope you arent in law school, that is totally false.

Hearsay is when I confess to you and you tell your mom and your mom tells police. Your mom did not directly observe the confession, hence "hearsay"

The police directly observed, taped and documented the childs statements, as well as hers.


Sound familiar?


"Criminal" (i.e. felonies) charges can not be dropped by a witness, once charges are filed by a prosecutor the only result is dismissal by prosecutor/judge, trial or plea bargin.

Get that through your skull.

i will readily admit that I am not a law student...and i dont pretend to be one

my apologies, you seem to be rather well-informed on the topic.
I was not aware that they had a taped confession by the teacher
I was aware that they had a sworn statement by the accusor...but I was under the impression that he was completely capable of retracting his sworn statement...in which case it would not be admissiable in court? If I am incorrect please let me know


in absentia?..doesnt this normally refer to the defendent not being present? Also, isnt this a rather rare occurence?

You are absolutely correct though...i did misuse the term "hearsay". It is not applicable in this scenario....I apologize

Can you point me towards an example of a trial where the accusor retracted his accusation and the trial continued? I thought this was a regular problem with rape trials....such as the publicized Kobe Bryant trial. The victim refuses to testify against defendent...even going as far as to retract their charges...is this correct?

No need to apolgize, It just appeared from your statements that you were misinformed. This case is everything America tried to make OJ case into.

Court TV Overview

I am sort of a crime documentary GEEK. Not the BS like CSI and sensationalized shows loosely based on fact. As much as Nancy Grace annoys me I watch heer show nearly daily. I love A&E first 48, American Justice and Cold Case Files.

This case has only exposed the systematic double standards of our criminal system. A friend of mine did a few presentations in ethics about similar topics "race and justice" he was a black dude going to law school and he presented some convincing crime statistics on the topic.

And the "just because I am black" cliche if you give it any credence must you conversely give credence to the "just because I am white cliche" also. You see it more and more when you watch 24 hour news channels.



The extortion of Kobe Bryant probably isnt a good example. I dont care much for him, but he got raped. Upon serious review the prosecutors found out that the broad was a lying tramp that wanted to get paid
basically a hooker. But she got her check, wife got a new diamond everyone is happy.

Ga Rape Trial

This is fairly common, take for instance: There was a black kid in Georgia, who was convicted of a rape related charge, and sent to prison for having sex with a white classmate. The young girl was forced to lie on the stand by her father to save his pride, everyone knew the girl liked the kid he was a popular jock and an honor student. Because he had an early birthday and was an 18 year old senior he was convicted of a lesser criminal offense.

None of the white kids that knew both of them and count atest to the situation told the truth in court because of fear of retribution from parents.

The only reason kid got out of jail was because Oprah Winfrey held the prosecutors feet to the fire. Black kid lost his scholarship, and a year of his life. The black kid had been adopted by whites years before, they were the only people in the town to stand by him.



P.S.
If it had not been for the "white" race card Beth Holloway would probably have her daughters body for burial. Ask any legal proffesional, Police 101 dictates find the last person she was with bring them to the station immediately and get a statement from them. Before they can destroy evidence and get their stories straight.

P.S.S
To take the security gaurds into custody based upon a lie that was quickly exposed via the hotel security video is telling.

@ PHAT BASTARD great insightful topic, some dont like to look in the mirror, and simply blame others for their shortcomings (black & white) it will be our ondoing.

YAY.....now its my turn to call you a numbnuts

You didnt answer my question.



All you did was point me towards some "race" cases.
They didnt have anything to do with the accusor not being present
they also had nothing to do with retracted accusations

?????????

Did you not bother to read my original question?
What about your use of the term "in absentia" which refers to the defendent not being present?

????????????????????????

The Debra Lavfre Case is an example of societal "double standards" not courtroom double standards
Remember that the Judge refused the plea bargain because it didnt involve jail time for a sex offender?
He also critized the DA for even offering such a plea bargain?
Even though the DA knew that the kid would drop charges if the case went to trial?

Are we even talking about the same thing here?

And which card exactly did this guy use (on the left)

after he admitted to brutally raping two boys ages 5 and 12 over a three year period and got off with just probation?

He must be a priest ... In the state I now reside in you can get more time for littering than for raping a boy.

How about a link. Some background


Are you referring to specifically rapes or criminal proceedings in general witness recanting is quite a frequent occurence, especially In politically motivated prosecutions. Plus rapes are difficult to prove under ordinary circumstances. He said She said.

I dont see your point, if someone confesses to a crime what need is there for victim testimony or impact statements. From the prosecution standpoint.

You as usual are haggling semantics. Plaintiffs as well as defendants dont have to testify.
Hence the footbal player Ray Caruth that had his girlfriend killed, her emergency room statements as well as 911 tapes were admitted to trial after her death.

911 tapes of the dead are always admitted. Confrontation in court is up to the judges discretion. Hence the Max Factor aire convicted in absentia when he skipped out of trial, and was hunted down by "DAWG"

The media is already wrapping her in this virginal veil of victimization. In a few more days I am sure they will drag the dead husbands name through the mud like the Texas mercedes murderer.

The reason she did it.

Evil
Sick
Dirty
Back
Stabbing
B******

No more no less.

Shot through the heart and your to blame, You give
LOVE
a
bad
name.
[chorus]
a
bad
name.
[chorus]

This is more the semantics....I dont doubt the issue of confrontation...or accepting sworn statements...
Im questioning the statement that a DA could continue a trial after the accusor retracted their statement...

The reason this is a big deal?
The Constitution!!!

You dont have to be face to face....but your accusor must be known...
what does this mean?
It means that you cannot be accused anonymously...the court may protect the accusors identity for security reasons...but the accusor is never totally anonymous...

also...how the hell do you 2 idiots keep getting confused on "in absentia"
thats where you try someone without them being present..
not when you use testimony from a witness on record, despite the witness recanting..

BTW...i dont haggle semantics...
You blowhards are so full of shit...someone has to set you straight....
P.S....did you ever figure out the difference between bail for a terrorist and bail for a jilted lover?

Defendant not present, I guess you didnt read that part 3 posts ago.
Ray Caruth, victim not present because she died.

Stop being so naive when did the constitution have anything to do with the real world, the constitution is a document of convience of your current president.


Same old shit, different day.

@ jha' this dude is a douche bag, he does this in every thread, he will lead every topic astray that he doesnt
start in an attempt to showcase his intelligence. He used to stalk my coworker/roommate as well as another guy who frequents board.

I will not stoop to the level he does of PM'ing other members/mods to persuade there personal feelings about someone else to bolster your "nick" So I will post it for you to read CockSr.

Good Luck, jha wonderful ensight and I look forward to chiming in on "your" replies...

sorry thought it was well known enough to not be needed

Heres one explaining the reasoning behind the sentence - Keep in mind he did confess as well
Another one talking about the prosecuter
Heres one where the victims express there gratitude towards Justice Connor and the legal system


or for stealing a song or movie from the RIAA and MPAA. . . it is pretty absurd


About the not being present at the trial deal . . .
its very rare (and controversial) when an accuser can do so without being present at the trial. The defendent has the right to confront his accuser if they still can (ie are not dead). Really the only cases where its common is in cases of abuse dealing with very young children (like under the age of 8). Then it is up to the judges consideration, and most of the time the judge does not allow for it. If they did then child rape convictions would go way up because parents would no longer have to be concerned about subjecting there kids to a trial. The kid could simply video tape there testimony and that would be that. According to this article the average judge declines to imprison 8 child molesters due to these reasons.

I know...and thats why i brought it up.....
Even in cases where the accusor is not known to the defendent....which is rare...the accusor is known to the court...and the documents are temporarily sealed.....



Dumbass...i already said that the defendent didnt need to be present....we are talking about witnesses


Great....but as you said, she died, and that is considered an extenuating circumstance...
Sworn statements are admitted too....

I asked for examples of the accusor retracting their accusation, and the trial continuing...or I would even accept cases of the witness retracting their sworn statement and the prosecution continuing to use the sworn statement.....




Well, you might want to notify the SCOTUS, since their entire job is interperting the Constitution

I think this country is founded on a document, I believe its called the Constitution, and I believe it is the most influential document in the USA....
BTW...Bush hates the Constitution...it has all of these rules about due process and "search and seizure"

That is not quite incorrect trial rights are for defendants victims have no rights in a criminal proceding because Duhh, they are not charged with a crime.

Confrontation tries to prevents individuals from making false claims without having to be acknowledged publicly as well as by the defendant. This is a defendants right not victim.

Anyone can write a letter to DA saying X did whatever. Its like the KKK, being forced legally in some states not to be able to hide there faces greatlys reduces their courage and annonimity.

That is the logic behind confrontation.



1) In many states Domestic Abuse charges once filled will be brought before a judge no matter the
disposition of the defendant. This happens in 9 out of 10 domestics, Couple fights someone gets
arrested, the other half declines to persue charges after the "makeup" but state still carries charges
till resolution.
a ) How because police take sworn statements.
b ) The police take pictures.
c ) Usually the agressor confesses but if not still no problem.

This is a slam dunk for a prosecutor.

Dude, I really, really, really, dont understand what you do not comprehend by the word "CONFESSION"


When a defendant confesses to a crime the not guilty plea and pending trial is merely a formality. The young man could fall of the face of the earth, but the written signed confession will not disappear.

Actually the defendant is the one required to be in court, not the victim. Maybe you are not aware but the vast majority of criminal cases that result in convictions are from circumstantial evidence. Which in lamen terms means their is no direct evidence to implicate anyone. (i.e NO WITNESS) That is the real world.

You were the one who brought up "in absentia" convictions...not me...




Thank you...finally.....an example of cases that do not involve the accusor.....
quick question though....
if the victim later retracts their sworn statement....
is the DA still allowed to use their sworn statement in court?
or must he rely on corroborating evidence...such as photos and perhaps a confession?

Im sorry....but why do you believe IrishBastard???
I just googled "Debra Lafave confession"....and I cant find anything from a reputable source that claims that she confessed....

He does this alot...he says something....without any reason....and its totally false

Instead of trying to be a antagonist maybe you should read first. You didnt look to hard a link to the overview of the case via CourtTv.com is in the thread.

For some reason the link to the Police documents are broken which probably put the rambles between you and Phat to bed.

Hmm...seems an apology is in order....sorry...the DA did drop the charges

Still, I am trying to figure out if the young man would have changed his statement....would his original statement still be admissible in court?



BTW...jha'dhur...did you happen to read the earlier part of the thread?
Because you seem rather well-informed...perhaps you can explain to me how a person's bail indicates bias?