BuffaloBillsForever Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 No. It wasn't. Yes it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 What a piece of trash. This scum bag was playing for a world class organization, had a HoF QB throwing to him, a multi-million dollar contract and recklessly threw it all away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 What a piece of trash. This scum bag was playing for a world class organization, had a HoF QB throwing to him, a multi-million dollar contract and recklessly threw it all away. What's the saying? Once a thug, always a thug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Yes it was. It was the rational he was using in the spikes example. Exactly. It is totally unreasonable because that rational has no idea how the courts system and evidence works. A citizen having little understanding of the how the court system works is unreasonable? Next you'll say the existence of stupidity isn't reasonable. It just isn't reasonable that there are stupid people or those ignorant of the burden of proof in criminal trials. Edited April 15, 2015 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 A citizen having little understanding of the how the court system works is unreasonable? Next you'll say the existence of stupidity isn't reasonable. It just isn't reasonable that there are stupid people or those ignorant of the burden of proof in criminal trials. That's good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 If you look at the evidence in this case, yes without question it is unreasonable even without a murder weapon or witness. The cirumstantial evidence was overwhelming. I think we can all agree though Brandon Spikes is an idiot. I'm thinking he may be substantially smarter than you after this exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 IMO the defense blew this one by failing to raise the issue of whether Odin was talking ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 That's nonsense. Just because it works a certain way does not make it unreasonable whatsoever to believe that it's unreasonable. It does not make it correct. The tax system in the US is completely unreasonable. You don't have to understand how it works to know that it could be unreasonable. You are not wrong to think it is unreasonable whether you know how it works or not. If someone is completely unfamiliar with the way the laws work or the crime is charged (even in a lay sense), that doesn't make it "reasonable" to question how this guy gets convicted. This crew committed the sloppiest execution in state history, most likely. If Spikes was even a tiny bit familiar with the evidence, he would never have tweeted that---unless he is saying that his buddy Hernandez should have gotten away with a reasonable act of righting some disrespect from some dude, since he wasn't "caught" in the act... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 If someone is completely unfamiliar with the way the laws work or the crime is charged (even in a lay sense), that doesn't make it "reasonable" to question how this guy gets convicted. This crew committed the sloppiest execution in state history, most likely. If Spikes was even a tiny bit familiar with the evidence, he would never have tweeted that---unless he is saying that his buddy Hernandez should have gotten away with a reasonable act of righting some disrespect from some dude, since he wasn't "caught" in the act... You can be totally reasonable and believe that there is no way that anyone should be convicted of "first degree" murder - and end up with life in prison with no chance of parole - with no witness or weapon. Knowing nothing about the courts and nothing about the case. That is a totally reasonable fundamental stance under any circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 You can be totally reasonable and believe that there is no way that anyone should be convicted of "first degree" murder - and end up with life in prison with no chance of parole - with no witness or weapon. Knowing nothing about the courts and nothing about the case. That is a totally reasonable fundamental stance under any circumstance. the idea that you need an eye ball witness and/or literal smoking gun to be convicted of first degree murder is a little less than reasonable, as a blanket statement, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 IMO the defense blew this one by failing to raise the issue of whether Odin was talking ****. Exactly. And in the immortal words of the great sage Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr.: "No mo' talkin', I'm walkin' and I'm poppin' the clip Glock on the hip, set-trippin', drippin' and ****, If you act like a b***h, you get smacked like a b***h." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Nelson said it better but probably what Spikes feels (and did not articulate well) @DavidNelson86: He was found guilty, and should do the time. But man... That's not the guy I knew. How could that happen. WHY did that happen. @DavidNelson86: I just can't wrap my head around this. For the first time, it's real. That's not the kid I knew. I just can't understand it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 the idea that you need an eye ball witness and/or literal smoking gun to be convicted of first degree murder is a little less than reasonable, as a blanket statement, in my opinion. This discussion of a specific case evolved into a theory discussion. As a blanket statement that no one should ever be convicted of first degree murder without a witness or weapon is, of course, pretty unreasonable. That's not what I meant though. I was talking about a fundamental theory of it, especially as it applies to this case and cases like it. It's not unreasonable IMO whatsoever to believe in theory, that if you know three guys were there and one of them very likely did it but there is no proof, that you shouldnt be convicted of first degree murder. A lot of people here and everywhere thought he was going to get off completely because of that. That is what I was talking about when I suggested that Spikes may just simply believe that there is no way he should get life in prison with no parole with no witness and no weapon when they knew three guys were there and it could have been any of them. That's not my belief. I think it's very reasonable to believe a guy should get what Hernandez did. I was playing devil's advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 People are convicted all the time without any witness evidence, murder weapon OR even a body of the murder victim. and their friends/family stand by them. I think we can all agree though Brandon Spikes is an idiot. That is an unreasonable assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 That is an unreasonable assumption. I'm glad you changed that. I read the first version and reasonably thought that what you were saying was completely unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Turns out Kraft's testimony sealed his fate: http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12696046/aaron-hernandez-trial-jurors-say-testimony-new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-compelling Also, I think it was amazing that the judge, who previously denied allowing his previous crimes and other accusations into evidence, met with the jury and let them know about those in a private meeting afterwards. Edited April 15, 2015 by stevestojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Turns out Kraft's testimony sealed his fate: http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12696046/aaron-hernandez-trial-jurors-say-testimony-new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-compelling Also, I think it was amazing that the judge, who previously denied allowing his previous crimes and other accusations into evidence, met with the jury and let them know about those in a private meeting afterwards. Turns out Kraft's testimony sealed his fate: http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12696046/aaron-hernandez-trial-jurors-say-testimony-new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-compelling Also, I think it was amazing that the judge, who previously denied allowing his previous crimes and other accusations into evidence, met with the jury and let them know about those in a private meeting afterwards. I think that's pretty cool of her. Seems like she was ruling strictly by the law in the trial but then kind of told them they did the right thing afterwards. Not that they wouldn't have found out. The Kraft testimony was extremely damaging. Obviously. How would he know the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I heard the prosecution asked to have her recused. When she refused, they appealed. For her to oversee that trial as well as she did after that tells me a lot about her professionalism and experience. I mean, even judges are human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocwocka Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 At least he can now spend the rest of his life catching balls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 I wonder how often the words "tight end" will come up in prison for him CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts