Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're just wrong, for the reasons I described above.
In fact the perp was choking her on purpose! That was the whole idea of rough sex. But the important part is his negligence in not knowing when to stop, not exercising reasonable judgement that if he didn't stop he might kill her—negligence pure and simple. He allowed a person to die because of his poor judgement. That is what we call murder 3, murder my means of careless negligence and disregard of the well being and safety of another human being.
It has nothing to do with ME personally.
You can ask ANY lawyers and see what they have to say. They will have to use that to defend their clients.
Why do you make it about me is something I simply don't understand.
The ONLY point I was making is that the LAWYERS are trying to prove the SO CALLED murder is "unintentional" It has nothing to do with what I think of this person personally. It is just the strategy the lawyer uses to defend him. THAT IS ALL
Like i posted earlier, Basically, the attorney argued his client’s member figures prominently in his “rough sex” defense, which hinges on the argument that Marquinez died accidentally, while engaging in consensual sexual activity. It is a strategy.
Please don't use emotion to treat every case. Thanks Personally I think this guy is disgusting, but do I think he intentionally tried to kill her, no. Please keep in mind that this guy was tried for MURDER.
I suppose this could wind up in front of a jury.
What he is trying to prove could certainly happen.
At the point of not wanting to sound like I am bragging, I am just stating fact. Some have said to me, "damm, you could choke a horse with that."
If one could choke a horse, it is not inconceivable that a woman could choke during oral sex.
You can ask ANY lawyers and see what they have to say. They will have to use that to defend their clients.
Why do you make it about me is something I simply don't understand.
The ONLY point I was making is that the LAWYERS are trying to prove the SO CALLED murder is "unintentional" It has nothing to do with what I think of this person personally. It is just the strategy the lawyer uses to defend him. THAT IS ALL
Like i posted earlier, Basically, the attorney argued his client’s member figures prominently in his “rough sex” defense, which hinges on the argument that Marquinez died accidentally, while engaging in consensual sexual activity. It is a strategy.
Please don't use emotion to treat every case. Thanks Personally I think this guy is disgusting, but do I think he intentionally tried to kill her, no. Please keep in mind that this guy was tried for MURDER.
It is customary to address the person to whom you are replying to. I was simply responding to your post, you know, the post you wrote?
Yes, it is customary for any and every defense lawyer to find and use the best legal defense that is not inconsistent with the facts of the case. That's why lawyers make the big bucks.
The lawyer is trying to prove the strangulation was unintentional. But that's not what the case is about. It's about the defendant being carelessly negligent. It's like a drunk driver running down a pedestrian. Clearly the drunk driver did not intend to kill the pedestrian, but the driver being carelessly negligent by driving drunk is what makes him or her guilty of murder, in this situation I believe it would be 3rd degree murder.
Let me stress again, this is a negligence case based upon casual disregard of the well being of the victim. Whether or not the defendant intended to kill the victim is not germane. He killed her because of his negligent disregard of possible repercussions of intentional asphyxiation.
What, I can't use emoticons? Hell, that takes all the fun out of posting!
Is being tried for MURDER any different than being tried for murder? Just wondering...
Seriously, if he is, he must have very huge lips. I can't feel a thing here in California.
Maybe you meant we should all line up and wait our places in turn?
Or maybe you are logic challenged and didn't realize that this topic was about a controversial court case. Maybe you're liking what you're getting and his oral attention to you is taking your mind off of writing posts. Yeah, that must be the ticket!
I'm sure all the women participating in this discussion will appreciate if it is a well hung jury!
Thank you. I had wondered what your authoritative sources were. Sadly, now I know.
I presume the cause of death was lack of oxygen. That's good to know. It reminds me to keep breathing. Respiration is one of our more important bodily functions, you know?
It's an interesting but true scientific fact: it's impossible to commit suicide by holding your breath. Just can't.
Hey now, dont forget us guys who most certainly can appreciate a well hung jury.
Sure, we can show it.. but we will have to cut it off, and bag it according to the chain of evidence.
OOOUUUUCCCHHHHHH!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert&Ripley
Hey now, dont forget us guys who most certainly can appreciate a well hung jury.
OMG, please excuse me! Although hetero myself I am an enthusiastic supporter of GLBT issues!
I'll admit I discriminate in my own bed, but I totally support all races, ethnicities, religions, GLBT, everything, everybody! I base my decisions on who people are, not what they are!
The only group I'm prejudiced against is prejudiced bigots.
I guess the verdict will depend on whether the prosecution or defense gets in the best licks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.