EDIT: Removed flaming.

Done with the discussion. I know your point, and am not even inclined to tell you it's wrong. Favoring the justice system is not a problem and never has been. I personally see it filled with a ton of operational efficiency issues. Not all of those involve wheeling someone out of a courtroom and in front of a firing squad, though the delays in getting a death row inmate to execution nearly border on a criminal waste of taxes in my opinion. Roger Clemens was another efficiency issue. Regardless of whether he committed perjury, there was no justice to be had there, with him or Bonds. It should have never been in front of the Government for there to have been a possibility of perjury, and trying athletes for not willingly destroying their image and careers is a waste of time and money. In cases where someone faces 52 counts of sodomy against children, I am indeed inclined to want swift justice, and I was not alone in that view. The only one who had issue with it was you.

So you then quoted me, you took my views and turned them into cutting hypotheticals, referenced hypocrits, braying animals, and the ran into a complete fantasy land where my view was morphed down the same path as the Holocaust. Then claimed these were just generalizations. These were more accurately a cutting diatribe on the thoughts I happened to possess. You then immediately turned around and said I declare war if someone disagrees with me, which is amusing considering you just did that exact thing in your ridiculing posts.

You can either stand behind what you said, or you can admit you were wrong. You can take that line about generalizations and sell it elsewhere, because I don't buy it. Quite simply, you are not that stupid, and verbose enough (being a media professional and all) not to leave yourself up for that kind of misinterpretation.

Last edited by alz (6/19/2012 1:19 pm)

Artie, I'm still reading the posts. Not the flames, the original two posts. I have no idea how else I could have taken them. Maybe I'm just being retarded. AP seemed to think so, but I really felt that you were calling me a hypocrit, and the holocaust thing just had me on tilt.

I was especially irritated because I reread my posts, and felt that there was nothing that deserved that response. To help ease some of the concern, I am a lot more aggressive online then real life. Fors has met me, and I'm pretty relaxed in real life. I allow myself to be trolled, unfortunately.

Here's some comedy, a peace offering if you will.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Woman-arrested-for-mobile-meth-lab-at-Walmart-arrested-again--159576825.html

forsberg_us wrote:

It looks like Sandusky's attorneys found a little something to latch onto yesterday.  Blaming the police for leading and coaching the witnesses is probably all you have left when your client goes on national television and tell the world he likes to shower with little boys.

It is a pretty good defense because it only takes one cop hating person to latch on to the idea.  I agree that in these cases victims can see dollar signs instead of justice.  I hope justive prevails in this case.

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had three of the 51 child sex-abuse charges against him dismissed Thursday before attorneys began closing arguments in the high-profile case that led to the firing of longtime head coach Joe Paterno.

Judge John Cleland found one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and one count of aggravated indecent assault involving the accuser known as Victim 4 weren't supported by the evidence. Another charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse involving another boy was dismissed because Cleland said it duplicated another count.

Sandusky still faces 48 criminal counts involving 10 alleged victims. Jurors were to hear closing arguments Thursday morning and could begin deliberations by the afternoon.

Cleland said two of the counts had to be dismissed because the alleged victim testified Sandusky attempted to penetrate him but didn't say that such penetration had actually occurred. Cleland said he would have been required to set aside any convictions on those counts, because ''the verdict was not supported by the evidence.''

When jurors begin weighing Sandusky's fate, they won't have the benefit of having heard the former coach take the stand in his own defense.

Once famed for his coaching acumen, Sandusky is charged with the alleged abuse of 10 boys over 15 years in hotels, at his home and in the football team's showers. Sandusky has maintained his innocence, and his attorneys have tried to weaken the prosecution's case by discrediting police investigators and suggesting that accusers are hoping to cash in on potential civil lawsuits.

Sandusky's arrest in November sparked an explosive scandal that led to the firing of Paterno and the departure of the university president, and cast a critical eye on the role of college administrators in reporting abuse allegations. The sweeping case also led to renewed focus on child abuse issues.

Cleland began Thursday's court session by instructing the 12 jurors and three alternates. The defense and prosecution would then present their closings, in that order.

The judge said jurors will each get a list showing each accuser, a worksheet of each alleged crime that will have questions they must answer in order to reach a verdict, along with a verdict slip.

''We make few decisions in life that are free from all doubt,'' he told them. ''You must be convinced to the same degree that you would act in a matter of your own life.''

He explained that just the ''mere suspicion of guilt'' is not enough to arrive at a guilty verdict.

''You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality,'' he said. He also said that it is ''not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing.''

Jurors will have to decide whether the defense was able to create sufficient doubt based on how the investigation was conducted, the reliability and motives of the accusers, and Sandusky's decades-long reputation as a man who worked tirelessly to help underprivileged children.

Prosecutors called 22 witnesses, including eight young men, ages 18 to 28, who alleged a range of abuse from grooming, kissing and massaging to fondling, oral sex and anal rape when they were boys.

Many of the 28 defense witnesses testified briefly to vouch for Sandusky's reputation. The defense's case has consisted of character witnesses who defended Sandusky's reputation, a psychologist who said Sandusky had a personality disorder and the ex-coach's wife, who said she did not see her husband do anything inappropriate with the accusers. His lawyers showed that an investigator had shared information with an accuser about other alleged victims' stories and repeatedly suggested that accusers have financial motivations for their claims.

Sandusky was only heard from via a November interview with NBC's Bob Costas, saying he probably shouldn't have showered with boys; and in letters he wrote to one of his accusers.

The defense asked Cleland to dismiss five counts related to a boy who was allegedly seen with Sandusky by a janitor, but the judge denied that request Thursday, saying they were up the jury to decide.

I saw that and found it odd as well.

Most states have a set of model instructions, and Pennsylvania is one of them.  I did a quick search and could not find a Pennsylvania criminal instruction that had the words "poor" and "judgment" in the same sentence.  Clearly this isn't a model instruction.

IMO, if the judge did this on his own, it's pretty poor form.  It's possible that Sandusky's attorneys offered this instruction and the judge agreed to permit it.  It isn't uncommon for judges to give alot of latitude to the side they think is going to lose.  The idea being that if you give the losing side everything they want, it leaves much less for appeal when they lose.

APIAD wrote:

If the instructions were offered by the defense wouldnt the state be able to object to the content until something agreeable could be decided on?

The prosecution could object, but the judge could overrule and accept what the defense offered.  The language doesn't have to be, and often isn't agreed to.  Jury instructions are a common point of appeal by the losing side.

The former Penn State assistant football coach is found guilty of 45 of 48 counts in the child sexual abuse case.

A good night.  Card ware cruising and Sandusky gets life.

"Paterno's death was the best thing that could have happened to his legacy."

No doubt, but if he had done the right thing in the first place, his legacy would have been enhanced. And maybe there would be fewer victims.

Right. Time to go scorched earth on 'em.

Any chance they at least take down the Paterno statue?

From the moment this started it was pretty clear that this situation was much complex for nobody to know about it.  However I am suprised that the statue was taken down.  I thought they would hold onto Paterno as an uninvolved party.

I dont care but I find it hard to believe that so much punishment was handed down to so many that were uninvolved.