• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not this again.

Excon said:
iLOL
You are totally lost.
Again.
This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​

Maybe you should look to Captain Adverse's post at #9, to get an idea of a great response?


As you were already told, this is not about me.
Your dishonesty is making a claim you can not support.
I do not need to tell you anything other than that, or anything about me.

So, are you done baiting and trying to make this personal, or do I have to report you?
Click to expand...

Report anything you feel is a rule violation. I'm not sure why you are getting so upset about my questions. I am offering my opinion on the matter, and then asking why yours has suddenly drastically changed. And I have shown I am willing to apologize for any offense if you clear up my misconception.

If there wasn't any evidence, the police would not have arrested her. We should trust in Law Enforcement completely. That is my position.

Do you agree that A) the police wouldn't arrest someone without evidence and B) We should trust Law Enforcement completely.

or

Do you think that law enforcement has C) overstepped, falsely arrested someone. And D) they are about to be tried unfairly for a crime they didn't commit. And that we should all stand up and voice our outrage at this travesty.

If the second is the case I can respect that. So which is it?
 
Captain Adverse said:
A coroner's inquest is not the same thing as a criminal judicial proceeding. :no:

The coroner's job is to determine cause of death for the issuance of a death certificate.

Section: 058.0451 Death to be reported and investigated by coroner, certain counties, when--place of death, two counties involved, how determined--efforts to accommodate organ donation. RSMO 58.451

Again, an inquest is not a judicial proceeding. There are no rules of judicial procedure; there is no determination of guilt or innocence.

The coroner leads a fact-finding investigation to determine the cause of death. The coroner's jury examines the body, views evidence relating to the death, questions witnesses, and arrives at a determination. If the determination is that the death occurred as the result of a crime, a death certificate is issued with that information as cause of death.

Then the issue is turned over to the proper police authority for investigation; and if the police investigation also supports a crime, to the Prosecutors office for consideration of legal action. That's all.
Click to expand...

Never said an inquest was the same as a criminal proceeding....only that it was a jury that determined to charge her with involuntary manslaughter....because you said "it would require convincing a jury" that her bullying the boy was criminally negligent. It was a jury that decided to criminally charge her with the very thing that you claim would require convincing a jury of her guilt.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
I'm not sure why you are getting so upset about my questions.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Pointing out that you are in the wrong and way off topic is not being upset.


ThoughtEx. said:
I am offering my opinion on the matter, and then asking why yours has suddenly drastically changed.
Click to expand...
1. You are speaking of your own subjective interpretations of that which you do not know. :lamo
2. As you were already told, stop baiting. It is becoming harassment.



ThoughtEx. said:
If there wasn't any evidence, the police would not have arrested her. We should trust in Law Enforcement completely. That is my position.

Do you agree that A) the police wouldn't arrest someone without evidence and B) We should trust Law Enforcement completely.

or

Do you think that law enforcement has C) overstepped, falsely arrested someone. And D) they are about to be tried unfairly for a crime they didn't commit. And that we should all stand up and voice our outrage at this travesty.

If the second is the case I can respect that. So which is it?
Click to expand...
Again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
 
Moot said:
Yes, Excon...she was charged with voluntary manslaughter based on the evidence...not feelings.
Click to expand...
No Moot.
Easily swayed by emotion.
Indict a ham sandwich and all that.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
Pointing out that you are in the wrong and way off topic is not being upset.



1. You are speaking of your own subjective interpretations of that which you do not know. :lamo
2. As you were already told, stop baiting. It is becoming harassment.



Again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
Click to expand...

Well

1) your submitting your objective opinions and trying to shout down anything that doesn't acknowledge those opinions as accepted fact.

and

2) I will apologize for any offense I have caused, all I need in order to do so is for you to correct my assumption. Has Law Enforcement overstepped by arresting a woman without evidence, and do you object to this woman being tried with due process. Which could very well end in her being found not guilty.

Simple questions, with simple answers relevant to the topic. And once you answer one way or the other I will apologize for offending you.
 
Moot said:
Good question. But not sure how it compares though because the columbine perps were on a revenge trip and seemed to feed off each others rage rather than internalizing it enough to doubt their own self worth and reason for living by committing their own suicide.
Click to expand...

They really weren't, though. The CW is that Harris and Klebold were relentlessly bullied by the Columbine jocks; however, by most (if not all) accounts, they were just eccentric kids who kinda kept to themselves until one day ... bang bang.

Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later - CNN.com

They just wanted to be famous. In a sick, twisted, awful way, but that was basically their motivation.

----------------------

As far as this case is concerned, reading the limited info in the OP, and considering the person charged was both an adult and a person of authority over a juvenile, I'm interested to see how the prosecution approaches this. Involuntary manslaughter certainly doesn't seem out of the question.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Well

1) your submitting your objective opinions and trying to shout down anything that doesn't acknowledge those opinions as accepted fact.

and

2) I will apologize for any offense I have caused, all I need in order to do so is for you to correct my assumption. Has Law Enforcement overstepped by arresting a woman without evidence, and do you object to this woman being tried with due process. Which could very well end in her being found not guilty.

Simple questions, with simple answers relevant to the topic. And once you answer one way or the other I will apologize for offending you.
Click to expand...
iLOL
You just don't know how to take no for an answer. :doh
Your whole speal is stupid.

#1 is a dishonest presentation in reply, as you were speaking of me personally. You do not know what you are talking about and I do not have to provide you answers.
As you were all ready told and will continue to be told, stop with the derailment, the baiting, the harassment, and push on with your bs.

#2. And again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​



If you think you are going to get anything different in reply you are mistaken.
 
Moot said:
Never said an inquest was the same as a criminal proceeding....only that it was a jury that determined to charge her with involuntary manslaughter....because you said "it would require convincing a jury" that her bullying the boy was criminally negligent. It was a jury that decided to criminally charge her with the very thing that you claim would require convincing a jury of her guilt.
Click to expand...

NO! :no:

It's clear that you don't understand the difference between a judicial proceeding (criminal or civil trial) and a non-judicial proceeding (ex. Coroner's Inquest, or for military personnel the Article 15 process).

The former follows rules of evidence, witness examination, jury selection, and burden of proof requirements to address statutory/code violations or torts. There is a prosecutor and a defense, and an impartial arbiter of law, a Judge.

On the other hand, in non-judicial proceedings, whoever is authorized to investigate is free to conduct the investigation as he sees fit within the limits of his statutory authority.

The coroner's job is simply to determine cause of death. He can do it alone, or if he deems necessary can gather a group of citizens (six in Missouri) and then tell them how to proceed. He guides them in the examination to reach a conclusion of fact as to cause of death. Solely for the purpose of filling out a death certificate.

There is no finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." No "preponderance of the evidence" standard to limit their method of determination. Hell, if the coroner tells them he thinks it's something and most agree...that's all she wrote.

In a court of criminal law, on the other hand, the jury is instructed that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a defense side arguing for the defendant. Big difference in how a jury acts.

While the term jury has a similar meaning in each case, they operate differently in each of these scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
iLOL
You just don't know how to take no for an answer. :doh
Your whole speal is stupid.

#1 is a dishonest presentation in reply, as you were speaking of me personally. You do not know what you are talking about and I do not have to provide you answers.
As you were all ready told and will continue to be told, stop with the derailment, the baiting, the harassment, and push on with your bs.

#2. And again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​



If you think you are going to get anything different in reply you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

Your answer is your opinion, which seems to allude that you think law enforcement should not have charged this woman. Offering a counter opinion, would just lead to pointless squabbling on a moral issue that boils down to a personal moral opinion that no two people will be eye to eye on.

However, we can't ignore the fact that law enforcement has deemed that this woman's actions have violated a law. Should something like this be a crime? Should Law Enforcement be reigned in? Have they overstepped? Or are they operating within their authority, and whatever the justice system decides is the correct decision. What is your opinion on the matter? If she is found guilty, will that have been justice?

Another question, if she had acted erratically during the arrest and been killed, would law enforcement have been acting with reason?

Remember this is a debate site, and you chose the topic. And placed it in Law and Order. And now are dodging questions dealing with Law and Order. While wanting everyone to acknowledge your personal moral opinion. So feel free to engage in debate at anytime. Or you know, keep crying about how this isn't about you, while pointing back to your feelings as the debate topic.
 
Kobie said:
They really weren't, though. The CW is that Harris and Klebold were relentlessly bullied by the Columbine jocks; however, by most (if not all) accounts, they were just eccentric kids who kinda kept to themselves until one day ... bang bang.

Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later - CNN.com

They just wanted to be famous. In a sick, twisted, awful way, but that was basically their motivation.

----------------------

As far as this case is concerned, reading the limited info in the OP, and considering the person charged was both an adult and a person of authority over a juvenile, I'm interested to see how the prosecution approaches this. Involuntary manslaughter certainly doesn't seem out of the question.
Click to expand...

So would you say the bullying in the Colombine case is comparable to this case...in that the jocks could be held responsible for bullying Harris and Klebold?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Your ...
Click to expand...
iLOL
You do not know how to accept no for an answer.

And again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
 
Moot said:
So would you say the bullying in the Colombine case is comparable to this case...in that the jocks could be held responsible for bullying Harris and Klebold?
Click to expand...

No, I'd say they're completely not comparable, in that the jocks bullying Harris and Klebold apparently didn't actually occur.

I certainly don't agree with Excon here (iLOL) that the horrific asshole who apparently bullied this kid to suicide isn't at least partially culpable; however, I just don't think Columbine is an apt comparison. YMMV.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
You do not know how to accept no for an answer.

And again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
Click to expand...

Did Law Enforcement overreach in this case. Did the police arrest a woman who has done nothing wrong. And if she is convicted will you consider that an injustice.

Yes or No.

Give me a no and I will accept it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO! :no:

It's clear that you don't understand the difference between a judicial proceeding (criminal or civil trial) and a non-judicial proceeding (ex. Coroner's Inquest, or for military personnel the Article 15 process).

The former follows rules of evidence, witness examination, jury selection, and burden of proof requirements to address statutory/code violations or torts.

On the other hand, in non-judicial proceedings, whoever is authorized to investigate is free to conduct the investigation as he sees fit within the limits of his statutory authority.

The coroner's job is simply to determine cause of death. He can do it alone, or if he deems necessary can gather a group of citizens (six in Missouri) and then tell them how to proceed. He guides them in the examination to reach a conclusion of fact as to cause of death. Solely for the purpose of filling out a death certificate.

There is no finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." No "preponderance of the evidence" standard to limit their method of determination. Hell, if the coroner tells them he thinks it's something and most agree...that's all she wrote.

In a court of criminal law, on the other hand, the jury is instructed that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a defense side arguing for the defendant. Big difference in how a jury acts.

While the term jury has a similar meaning in each case, they operate differently in each of these scenarios.
Click to expand...

A coroner doesn't need an inquest to determine the cause of death, in this case, suicide by gun. In fact, the article said it was unusual for coroners to call for an inquest. So why would he call for an inquest if he already knew the cause of death?

It is my understanding that a state prosecutor can call for a grand jury to present the evidence to see if it warrants an indictment...and usually there isn't a defense lawyer unless or until it goes to trial. I assume it is similar for a coroners inquest.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
Did Law Enforcement overreach in this case. Did the police arrest a woman who has done nothing wrong. And if she is convicted will you consider that an injustice.

Yes or No.

Give me a no and I will accept it.
Click to expand...
I already told you that you are not going to get an answer.
That you continue to push is hilarious, especially after you have been referred to the following multiple times.

Again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
 
Excon said:
I already told you that you are not going to get an answer.
That you continue to push is hilarious, especially after you have been referred to the following multiple times.

Again.

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​
Click to expand...

May I ask why you do not want to answer my simple, reasonable questions?
 
Kobie said:
No, I'd say they're completely not comparable, in that the jocks bullying Harris and Klebold apparently didn't actually occur.

I certainly don't agree with Excon here (iLOL) that the horrific asshole who apparently bullied this kid to suicide isn't at least partially culpable; however, I just don't think Columbine is an apt comparison. YMMV.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I think, too. :)
 
ThoughtEx. said:
May I ask why you do not want to answer my simple, reasonable questions?
Click to expand...
Oy vey!
iLOL
I have already told you where I stand on this.
You need to lean to accept "no" as an answer.
 
Moot said:
A coroner doesn't need an inquest to determine the cause of death, in this case, suicide by gun. In fact, the article said it was unusual for coroners to call for an inquest. So why would he call for an inquest if he already knew the cause of death?
Click to expand...

I already provided the answer in my first post:

Captain Adverse said:
The coroner's job is to determine cause of death for the issuance of a death certificate.

8. If on view of the dead body and after personal inquiry into the cause and manner of death, the coroner considers a further inquiry and examination necessary in the public interest, the coroner shall make out the coroner's warrant directed to the sheriff of the city or county requiring the sheriff forthwith to summon six good and lawful citizens of the county to appear before the coroner, at the time and place expressed in the warrant, and to inquire how and by whom the deceased died.
Click to expand...

Section: 058.0451 Death to be reported and investigated by coroner, certain counties, when--place of death, two counties involved, how determined--efforts to accommodate organ donation. RSMO 58.451
Click to expand...

More details are available at the link.

Moot said:
It is my understanding that a state prosecutor can call for a grand jury to present the evidence to see if it warrants an indictment...and usually there isn't a defense lawyer unless it goes to trial. I assume it is similar for a coroners inquest.
Click to expand...

Yes, a Grand Jury is a non-judicial body which in those States that use them allows a Prosecutor to present before them reasons why he thinks a person has committed a crime, and then votes whether or not such evidence supports a criminal indictment charging a person with one or more crimes. It is not a trial, just (usually) a rubber stamp for the Prosecutor's office to get charges to court. This leads to a criminal trial.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Oy vey!
iLOL
I have already told you where I stand on this.
You need to lean to accept "no" as an answer.
Click to expand...

Why should I learn that? I'm not responsible for whether you engage me or not. You choose to reply and actively participate in the discussion. Why should I answer your questions, and you not answer mine?

Why do you not want to discuss the Law and Order aspect of this case, in the law and order forum? Why must we focus on the one aspect that is not a law and order issue? Your feelings...
 
Moot said:
In fact, the article said it was unusual for coroners to call for an inquest. So why would he call for an inquest if he already knew the cause of death?
Click to expand...

This is what it said.

In an unusual legal twist on an all-too-common sad story, Branham has been arrested after a prosecutor charged her with involuntary manslaughter.

Missouri law allows for a coroner to seek an official inquest, which as the AP noted is a rare process in the U.S. similar to a grand jury investigation save for a vast difference — coroner’s inquests are public. Following Suttner’s suicide, Howard County Coroner Frank Flaspohler asked a six-person jury to decide whether the boy’s death was an accident or a crime.

“I felt there was bullying going on and things weren’t getting corrected,” Flaspohler said. “Hopefully this makes the school pay attention to what’s going on. And it’s not just in that school. We all need to wake up and say this exists and we need to take care of it.”​



Had you followed the link in that article to the original AP report you would have found the following explaining why he called for the inquest.

FAYETTE, Mo. • A manager of a small-town Dairy Queen accused of bullying a teenage employee who later killed himself was charged Wednesday with involuntary manslaughter following a rare investigation in Missouri requested by the local coroner.

[...]

The Howard County coroner sought an official inquest following Suttner's death, a process similar to a grand jury investigation but public. Such investigations can be sought if a coroner believes a death could be related to a continuing safety and health hazard. In this case, the coroner said he pursued the inquest to publicly acknowledge bullying as a problem.

[...]

Dairy Queen manager charged after Missouri teen's suicide ​
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Why should I learn that? I'm not responsible for whether you engage me or not. You choose to reply and actively participate in the discussion. Why should I answer your questions, and you not answer mine?

Why do you not want to discuss the Law and Order aspect of this case, in the law and order forum? Why must we focus on the one aspect that is not a law and order issue? Your feelings...
Click to expand...
Well this has been fun.

I have already told you where I stand.

Do you know that well known and misattributed quote regarding insanity? Well I do not expect different results and I truly hope you aren't either.
 
Kobie said:
I certainly don't agree with Excon here (iLOL) that the horrific asshole who apparently bullied this kid to suicide isn't at least partially culpable;
Click to expand...

This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​

It is sickening to think anyone would think another is culpable for another's faulty reasoning.
 
Excon said:
This is just wrong.
His faulty reasoning is the cause, not someone being a bully.

I hope the jury finds her not guilty as they should.

This thinking that someone else or an object has to be responsible for the deeds of another needs to stop. ​

It is sickening to think anyone would think another is culpable for another's faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...

You mean like when an unarmed black man is culpable, for a trigger happy officer's reasoning, that he has a gun and is a threat? I agree. That is sickening...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom