BABY KILLER GETS OFF

[Paul in NZ]

The only thing we will ever all agrre on is that this is a horrible situation for everyone involved.

I doubt any real good will come from it in any shape or form. We could be like some societies, recognise that this is pretty dangerous ground and collectively (and politely) ignore it and move on. But, we won't...

This is however, a really great example of how our society does still have enough flexibility to deal with situations that cannot be defined easliy in law. The mans defence team convinced honourable 12 citizens that there was not a case to answer. (would you liked to have sat on THAT jury?) These people heard the whole story and came to a conclusion. We should be cautiously supportive of them and no, this does NOT create a situation where it's fine for us to start killing children. To suggest that is irresponsible in the extreme.

Sadly, the people with the same old agendas now want to exploit the situation for all it's worth which is it's self a bloody terrible thing to do. They are a danger to us all. We have people dragging in mercy killings of the elderly and abortions for goodness sake! These are not the same at all.

We have someone that did something illegal in an extreme situation and the system accomodated him. Bravo for the system and the 12 people with the balls to MAKE a decision!!

Have faith people. This is still a great country.

Paul N

ps. If you want to get mad. Write a letter to those sick c**nts in the media that want to expose the poor bastards name... Let them know how much we applaud the wonderful actions of the 5th estate as we the public demand to know this.... And just how much we are looking forward to the in depth coverage of his eventual suicide.. Oh the humanity..... Gotta be a news award in this story someplace, especially if the guy tops the rest of the family too in a gruesome fashion and thats the most important thing... right? TV news have become filthy scum hardly worthy of the effort to make the electricity to watch.

[MikeL]

I agree that the verdict was wrong in law. But as I noted earlier, there is law, and there is justice. Did the jury, I wonder, fear that the judge would not agree with their idea of justice?

[Indiana_Jones]

I love what Political Correctness has done to the western world, we're all a bunch of girls now.

-Indy

[Paul in NZ]

I love what Political Correctness has done to the western world, we're all a bunch of girls now.

-Indy

I think there are 12 people that are not a bunch of girls. They could have taken the easy way out but they came up with a decision.

[jazbug5]

..And are you suggesting that there's something wrong with girls, then..?
Perhaps if they were, that's why they were so *enlightened*....
Meh. I agree with most of what's been said here by such chaps as Paul and Frosty. I feel nothing but pity for the family and contempt for the media.
I just hope they are able to achieve some sort of peace of mind again in the not too distant future.

[Draco]

We have people dragging in mercy killings of the elderly and abortions for goodness sake! These are not the same at all.

We have someone that did something illegal in an extreme situation and the system accomodated him. Bravo for the system and the 12 people with the balls to MAKE a decision!!

Well said Paul! We can all have opinions but the only people who truely know what they would have done in this situation are the 12 juriors who had to make the call after hearing ALL the facts. Thank god we still have compassion in our courts where the law does not. As many have already said on this thread, you must first walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him. I'm also glad he is not in jail because what does that serve????? I think more energy and attention should be spent on examining our so-called wonderful health system that let him, his baby and his family down, and focus on how we can prevent it happening again in the future. Funny old species we are, we never seem to learn from the past.

[mangell6]

Tell you what Toddy - read the top of the page. This is a site for New Zealand motorcyclists, and, like it or not, New Zealand motorcyclists eat, drink, sleep, fuck, die, and have opinions about what happens in all aspects of society, not just talking about motorcycles. Believe it or not, motorcycling is just one part in my life.

Can the ADMINS move this thread to the appropriate place please.

I think that " Kiwi Biker forums > Off topic > Rave On " a more appropriate place for this topic based on its definition of "Talk about any non-motorbike stuff here."

Mike

[Gixxer 4 ever]

I agree that we should care for those who need it. However, I had an Oma with alzheimers disease, and seeing the quality of life deteriorate so far that she couldnt function as a human but rather as a slightly oversized newborn baby. She had seen her own mother go the same way with alzheimers, and had stated many times while she was sane that she didnt want to go that way. We, as a family, explored the options for voluntary euthanasia both here and in Holland. The thing was, even though she had communicated her wishes years earlier, the doctors could not go through with the procedure because she was judged not to be sound of mind, and hence could not be relied on for her consent. Thankfully she passed peacefully and relatively soon - about 4 years after the initial diagnosis of the disease.!!!"

So you did not have to kill. Life ended as it should. No unnecessary guilt.

For me personally, seeing someone who I had known as a lively, vibrant person transform into what she did was harrowing. At times such as her 50th wedding anniversary, it was shocking just how far she had deteriorated. She walked up to Opa and said: "who might you be?"


"I am your husband. This is our 50th wedding anniversary".!!!"

I rest my case. She walked so at what point do you kill. I would have hoped it was when all body function has stopped not when the brain had lost its ability to recognise.

This can hardly be called life... surely..."

Yes it is and for you and I to look after our family in this condition gives us the ability to appreciate our lives and understand how bad it could be. We sat with my wife's father till he died at home from cancer and it was hard but it made the family closer and stopped all the petty shit that was going on. A tuff lessen that we all needed. Our kids are much better people for it

"ooo you denied that egg a chance at becoming a foetus. You murderer by association, you!!!"

At least you have a sense of hummer. We will agree to disagree.

[Indiana_Jones]

It is sad that we can't help people end their lives, but if it were allowed it would make a huge loop-hole in a already pussy justice system where the crook has more rights then the victim. But that's just my view on the matter

-Indy

[Stinger]

I agree that the verdict was wrong in law. But as I noted earlier, there is law, and there is justice. Did the jury, I wonder, fear that the judge would not agree with their idea of justice?

Yeah, I think that you might have hit the nail on the head. I wonder if the scenario would have been different if they'd been told about spudchuka's solution. i.e, if you vote guilty he will get something like home detention or whatever.


Reminds me of a court room scenario
"So Mr Smith, have you stopped beating your wife"
"But I..."
"Just yes or no thankyou"

[spudchucka]

Yeah, I think that you might have hit the nail on the head. I wonder if the scenario would have been different if they'd been told about spudchuka's solution. i.e, if you vote guilty he will get something like home detention or whatever.


Reminds me of a court room scenario
"So Mr Smith, have you stopped beating your wife"
"But I..."
"Just yes or no thankyou"

The jury should not concern themselves with potential penalties because that can cloud their assessment of the facts. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not reccomend sentences. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence and they are guided by the Sentencing Act 2002, there are some interesting guidelines if anyone can be bothered reading it.

[Stinger]

The jury should not concern themselves with potential penalties because that can cloud their assessment of the facts. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not reccomend sentences. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence and they are guided by the Sentencing Act 2002, there are some interesting guidelines if anyone can be bothered reading it.

It is very hard however not think about the consequences of your actions, whether they be right or wrong.

Are the jurors told what the maximum penalties for a particular crime are ? Because I know that we are told about copyright maximum penalties, and driving maximum penalties.

[Skyryder]

I don't believe the jury thought "he had the right to do so". Thats not what finding someone not guilty is about.

Yes I could not agee more. Not guilty is about two issues:

1 not prooven

2 innocent of charges laid.

The jury for whatever reason bought in a 'Not Guilty' verdict. This on a confession.

In his summing up this morning he asked the jury to acquit the man. He asked them to consider that there was not enough evidence that the man had killed his baby apart from his own admission.


Unless you believe that this admission was coerced, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this then along with the confession I can only conclude that due to the circumstances of the child mental condition the jury belived that the parent had this right. I can draw no other conclusion from a not guilty verdict.

If there is another I would like to hear it.

Skyryder

[marty]

If you don,t like it don,t go there, most here are happy to discuss non bike topics, one of the things that makes KB such a good site.

There is such a diverse(sp/) memebership that topics such as this can be well debated, however if its not for you thats fine, you stick to bike related topics, but don,t persume to tell us what we should and shouldn't discuss.

Firefight.

yeah - for a motorcycling forum, the biggest thread is one about religion! what's that all about?

get back to bikes you guys. geeze.

[Ms Piggy]

Yes I could not agee more. Not guilty is about two issues:

1 not prooven

2 innocent of charges laid.

The jury for whatever reason bought in a 'Not Guilty' verdict. This on a confession.

In his summing up this morning he asked the jury to acquit the man. He asked them to consider that there was not enough evidence that the man had killed his baby apart from his own admission.


Unless you believe that this admission was coerced, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this then along with the confession I can only conclude that due to the circumstances of the child mental condition the jury belived that the parent had this right. I can draw no other conclusion from a not guilty verdict.

If there is another I would like to hear it.

Skyryder

Ok I unders tand what you're saying but, just b/c the jury found him nor guilty (which I admit surprised me), as I said before, I don't believe it meant the jury thought "he had the right to do so". Which was your intial statement.