Steely Dan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 "Educated" is used loosely here, right? I would say you are making a guess on some bits of released information. In this case, those bits were big, and factual. Doesn't always work that way, though. I'm sure nobody associated with the case will be reading these threads. Making suppositions based on reported information isn't that bad IMO. If somebody goes on TV and starts jawing about this stuff that's a different thing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm sure nobody associated with the case will be reading these threads. Making suppositions based on reported information isn't that bad IMO. If somebody goes on TV and starts jawing about this stuff that's a different thing IMO. You are correct, and I retracted my admonishment after Tom rightly called me out on it. Tasteless? Perhaps. But not much more than that. I've engaged in far worse, I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I was clearly not only implying, but actually stating in other posts, that going by the tidbits released by the police is probably not a great way to solve a crime AND those unconnected to the case doing so the day after the death seemed a bit unseemly. As it turns out, the Police didn't hold back info and the case was as straightforward as it appeared. I never suggested (seriously) that it wasn't. I suggested it MAY not have been, and there would be know way for the posters here to know. It was a PROCESS argument. (But I know that is way over your head, WEO.) Did many he posters turn out to be right in their guesses? Sure. I never suggested they couldn't be correct. The process was still flawed, though. Any process that relies exclusively on the public statements of the authorities (particularly in situations where the authorities statements are known to be potentially incomplete) is a flawed process. This is a disingenuous response. By mocking (this is exactly what your post did) those who (correctly) hypothesized a murder suicide and by discounting their straighforward conclusion based on the evidence released, your intent was clear. You've been called on it and now you are qualifying your statement. Your unsolicited assumption as the arbiter of what is tasteful and what is not is immaterial to this discussion, and a bit much to take. Normal people are free to speculate about scandalous stories. It is hardly "distasteful"---especially at a site like this, and especially when they are making intelligent "guesses" based on available information. Time to lose the pipe, ascot and smoking jacket, Commadore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 This is a disingenuous response. By mocking (this is exactly what your post did) those who (correctly) hypothesized a murder suicide and by discounting their straighforward conclusion based on the evidence released, your intent was clear. You've been called on it and now you are qualifying your statement. Your unsolicited assumption as the arbiter of what is tasteful and what is not is immaterial to this discussion, and a bit much to take. Normal people are free to speculate about scandalous stories. It is hardly "distasteful"---especially at a site like this, and especially when they are making intelligent "guesses" based on available information. Time to lose the pipe, ascot and smoking jacket, Commadore. You're making the mistake of taking Mr. D seriously. I'd estimate his pomposity factor fluctuates between .90 and .98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 You're making the mistake of taking Mr. D seriously. I'd estimate his pomposity factor fluctuates between .90 and .98. Versus Mr. WEO, whose pomposity factor is 1.1 (i.e. 110%). Which makes him calling-out Deano even more ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 "Educated" is used loosely here, right? I would say you are making a guess on some bits of released information. In this case, those bits were big, and factual. Doesn't always work that way, though. edumacated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? I'm not saying I'm into any grassy knoll theories here, but I was wondering the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? They said it was because he did not have any signs of defensive moves, which is a little bit of a stretch, IMO. I mean what kind of defense would you be able to put up after the first shot. Stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? He had his jammies on and his binkie next to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 He had his jammies on and his binkie next to him. I believe that was verbatim from the police report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm not saying I'm into any grassy knoll theories here, but I was wondering the same thing. They said it was because he did not have any signs of defensive moves, which is a littlebit of a stretch, IMO. I mean what kind of defense would you be able to put up after the first shot. Stupid! I would think that would apply in a knife attack[cuts on the hands,arms] but shot in the head? It just seems like this was case closed awful fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I would think that would apply in a knife attack[cuts on the hands,arms] but shot in the head? It just seems like this was case closed awful fast. Shooting Steve McNair while he was sleeping also seems odd, wouldn't you want the person you were shooting to know why you were shooting him if it was personal? (unless fear of him reacting to fast made you think otherwise) Steve McNair was a very fast and gifted athlete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? If he's in a natural sleep position and it doesn't appear that he fell or that he put his hands up to cover himself. JMO It interesting that she tried to make her head land on his lap which would seem to mean he wasn't lying down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm not saying I'm into any grassy knoll theories here, but I was wondering the same thing. a 2nd spitter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 This is a disingenuous response. Apparently a discussion about process if WAY over your head. Thanks for proving me right, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Not to interrupt this wonderful exchange,but how do you know someone was asleep when they were shot to death? It sounds like the work of a contract ninja. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Looks like McNair isn't too happy with his Girlfriend getting a DUI a week before she wacked him. McNair also had a 6 year relationship with a stripper as well, who wasn't too happy with him passing. Play with fire...... http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/steve-mc...azemis%2F566206 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts