Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

The Eagle · 04-18-2010, 06:09 AM

I rememeber when you could post your opinion, and not get slammed by everyone. Boy has this forum changed while I was recovering. There is a condition called "Reasonable Doubt," that I used in some of my thinking. First the OUI, had doubt. Fact: Extreme blood loss, will greatly effect readings. Test yourself. How much can you drink without getting "Impared"? Now before you drink, go donate a pint of blood, then go home and take a drink or two, and see how fast it affects you. Her OUI charge came after the blood test at the hospital after loosing an extreme amount of blood. Does it prove or dis prove her ability before the accident? NO! That's called "Reasonable Doubt!" One expert claims she was going over 28 miles an hour, and another expert confirmed she was going only 18 MPH, as she claims. What does that prove? "Reasonable Doubt!" So a jury of her "peers," found her guilty for the death, by Negligence. I really wonder how much of the decision was based on bias, because of the "public Opinion"? It seems a lot of forum members convicted her, before the trial even began. One member said they hoped I'd be on the jury if they were on trial. If I were, I would not pre-convict them, and listen to all the "experts," and make a decision based on evidence and not on "who you are." Remember, if there is "reasonable Doubt," then you must find them not-guilty. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Does it always work in favor of the innicent? NO, But it's supposed to. Am I now saying she was not guilty, NO, I wasn't on the Jury. I only stated MY opinion, baised by what I read about the Expert Witnesses. (even the other victim stated they were not drunk..what if the other gal was driving?) MY OPINION was that the generall public would be better served by her letting others SEE what happens when you use poor judgement. Let them see first hand the damage caused by not using common sense. When I was in High School, I "heard" a lot about a place called Vietnam. I never had any idea of what it was UNTIL I served two tours. See what I'm trying to say? Lock her up, and they hear something about it, let them SEE it and it makes them think!
After all this I now have a good idea of how the Salem Witch Trials were run. HANG Em UP! I hope and pray none, of you ever get in a situtation where you need someone to use common sense, when it comes to making a decision that will give or not give you a second chance to make ammends. This is my last post on this issue.
"The Eagle" (Not to be confused with Eagle)

04-18-2010, 06:09 AM	#29
The Eagle Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Burlington MA & Moultonboro NH Posts: 218 Thanks: 17 Thanked 141 Times in 33 Posts	Boy Have things changed here! I rememeber when you could post your opinion, and not get slammed by everyone. Boy has this forum changed while I was recovering. There is a condition called "Reasonable Doubt," that I used in some of my thinking. First the OUI, had doubt. Fact: Extreme blood loss, will greatly effect readings. Test yourself. How much can you drink without getting "Impared"? Now before you drink, go donate a pint of blood, then go home and take a drink or two, and see how fast it affects you. Her OUI charge came after the blood test at the hospital after loosing an extreme amount of blood. Does it prove or dis prove her ability before the accident? NO! That's called "Reasonable Doubt!" One expert claims she was going over 28 miles an hour, and another expert confirmed she was going only 18 MPH, as she claims. What does that prove? "Reasonable Doubt!" So a jury of her "peers," found her guilty for the death, by Negligence. I really wonder how much of the decision was based on bias, because of the "public Opinion"? It seems a lot of forum members convicted her, before the trial even began. One member said they hoped I'd be on the jury if they were on trial. If I were, I would not pre-convict them, and listen to all the "experts," and make a decision based on evidence and not on "who you are." Remember, if there is "reasonable Doubt," then you must find them not-guilty. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Does it always work in favor of the innicent? NO, But it's supposed to. Am I now saying she was not guilty, NO, I wasn't on the Jury. I only stated MY opinion, baised by what I read about the Expert Witnesses. (even the other victim stated they were not drunk..what if the other gal was driving?) MY OPINION was that the generall public would be better served by her letting others SEE what happens when you use poor judgement. Let them see first hand the damage caused by not using common sense. When I was in High School, I "heard" a lot about a place called Vietnam. I never had any idea of what it was UNTIL I served two tours. See what I'm trying to say? Lock her up, and they hear something about it, let them SEE it and it makes them think! After all this I now have a good idea of how the Salem Witch Trials were run. HANG Em UP! I hope and pray none, of you ever get in a situtation where you need someone to use common sense, when it comes to making a decision that will give or not give you a second chance to make ammends. This is my last post on this issue. "The Eagle" (Not to be confused with Eagle)