1 posted on
04/08/2009 5:53:32 AM PDT by
SLB
To: SLB
Some weird stuff in this story.
2 posted on
04/08/2009 5:57:15 AM PDT by
Tax-chick
("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
To: SLB
I’d need a lot more info before making a judgement on this case.
8 posted on
04/08/2009 6:11:53 AM PDT by
gieriscm
(07 FFL / 02 SOT - www.extremefirepower.com)
To: SLB
“The burden of proof is on the state.”
Umm...isn’t that one of our chiefest principles?
Innocent until proven guilty?
9 posted on
04/08/2009 6:17:43 AM PDT by
dsc
(A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.)
To: SLB
With the new law that went into effect a couple years ago, we have to prove this was anything other than justified, Pavey said. The burden of proof is on the state. This is a correct statement, assuming 230 years fits into one's definition of "a couple years ago".
11 posted on
04/08/2009 6:25:27 AM PDT by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: SLB
Ricketts husband, Eric, said he stands behind his wife, even though, he said, hed not been aware of West fathering three of Ricketts four children until the investigation surrounding the shooting started. ...
12 posted on
04/08/2009 6:25:49 AM PDT by
bgill
(This IS my happy face.)
To: SLB
If you read long enough it starts to make sense:
[Victim’s] father, Charles Stanford West, mayor of a West Virginia town and criminal defense attorney by trade...
To: SLB
By all means I think if a stranger breaks into your house you should be able to shoot them, because you have no idea if they are armed and by the time you find out it may be too late.
OTOH Someone that a person knows is a poor test of this law, because it is too hard to tell. For example maybe the man was a threat, or maybe he was there to tell her he was leaving her for someone else and she shot him? More details need to be known.
15 posted on
04/08/2009 7:07:55 AM PDT by
Cubs Fan
(The Obama Presidency, brand new and already the worst in history)
To: SLB
The moral of the story may be that dorking another guy’s wife could carry health risks.
To: neverdem
18 posted on
04/08/2009 7:26:56 AM PDT by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: SLB
“With the new law that went into effect a couple years ago, we have to prove this was anything other than justified, Pavey said. The burden of proof is on the state.”
What a stupid thing to say. Isn’t the burden of proof always on the state? What? Did you have to prove your innocents before?
20 posted on
04/08/2009 8:26:55 AM PDT by
babygene
(It seems that stupidity is the most abundant element in the universe)
To: SLB
Geez, why didn’t the woman just divorce the husband so that she could be with the boyfriend? I imagine the husband payed the bills while she had fun with the boyfriend. Who knows though, maybe they had an agreement.
22 posted on
04/08/2009 8:53:54 AM PDT by
caver
(Obama's first goals: allow more killing of innocents and allow the killers of innocents to go free.)
To: SLB
Geeeeee ....................... I wonder if there's any chance that the cops and prosecutors have any friendly relations with the “mayor of a West Virginia town and criminal defense attorney by trade” whose son they claim is a victim. Those of us who have lived in small towns know that there is no way that there could be any crony-ism down at the local courthouse, ‘Boss Hogg” wouldn't allow that.
24 posted on
04/08/2009 9:33:45 AM PDT by
fella
(.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson