LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 164
0 members and 164 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 09-09-2006, 01:48 PM   #983
Penske_Account
WacKtose Intolerant
 
Penske_Account's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PenskeWorld
Posts: 11,627
Cindy Sheehan: a Mom of Peace and Tolerance

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
She said she has "fantasized" about killing Bush as an infant.

My "typically dismissive conclusory post" was based upon a simple reading of the plain language of the statute. There was not even any need to fall back on the canon of statutory interpretation that an ambiguity in a criminal statute must be construed against the state. There was no ambiguity.

Now I realize that your experience with the criminal law goes back a few years. Nonetheless, I would be very interested to see how you could put her actual words into the actual proscription of the statute.

Prove me wrong. I am open to your persuasion.
Without actually prosecuting her, it would be impossible for me to prove you wrong. I will let you know how my petition to Justice to become a junior prosecutor goes....

However, it seems to me, without having the benefit of reading the full passage in the book (which you do not either) that if the fantasizing, in context, could be construed to imply an actual threat (and/or perhaps if the recipient of the fantasized murder was actually threatened by her publication) then there could be grounds to prosecute.

Of course, if you read my original post more closely, I wrote, "I wonder if Gonzalez and the attorneys at Justice will do their appointed jobs and prosecute her", implicit in that "wonder" was that they would need to actually have a case to make, requiring a job to be done, which would have to be predicated on the actual language in the book, which, if you read carefully, does not come out until September 19th. I don't have a time machine, anymore, and as a result, I have not gone into the future and read her book. However, I am wondering. I am not asserting that she indisputably violated the statute. Yet.

On the other hand, you seem hell bent on giving her a pass no matter what the language says, which makes sense from the penultimate most militantly partisan left wing ideologue on the board, and a person, who, arguably, may have violated that statute himself.....,,,maybe you think your spirited defense will get you Seven Minutes of Heaven with Ms. Sheehan??
__________________
Since I'm a righteous man, I don't eat ham;
I wish more people was alive like me



Penske_Account is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:26 AM.