Yeah unfortunately between your comment that you'd watch the movie and the other saying they should make the game, I'm worried that the only one who would option my script would be Uwe Boll.
Is this like your definition of "crazy" applying to all violent criminals regardless of the complete lack of psychological validity? Sorry, whether you understand it or not, it's just not the case. Prison is a pretty fucked up place, and like I said rape isn't about sexuality it's about power and control. Think for a second about the implications of your axiomatic definitions -- you're implying that homosexuals or bisexuals are more likely to be "crazy" and commit violent crimes. Maybe that seems logical to you. Doesn't matter. Separating everyone you could identify as either before incarceration would not in any way result in a reduction in prison rape in your hypothetical "straight man" prison.
World War III is starting? Oh god, I still haven't received my check from that Nigerian prince! And where's my viagra?
Yeah, because that's the first thing I'm going to be worried about when WWIII starts: Boners.
Though I guess it is a legitimate concern, due to the widespread boner shortage in the states in WWII, which didn't end until after the war when the market was flooded with them.
It's amazing how people can be tricked by something that is on its surface so laughable that it should be dismissed outright!
After all, how could World War III possibly have started when World War II hasn't even ended yet?! Just because there's no obvious troop movements or visible battles doesn't mean that merged ghosts of Churchill and Roosevelt along with their dark ally Zombie Stalin don't yet wage war against the forces of Hitler's Head and the demon-animated armor of Hirohito! No, you can see the effects of this conflict every day in the fluctuations of the price of milk to the record of the Essex cricket team. So don't believe anything you read about some ludicrous World War III until you see the purple flag of the Undying Allies flying over the White House, indicating our inevitable triumph!
I don't take such a dim view of WP as some, especially when the information has no real bearing on my life.:P
So yeah, Bush could just pardon them I guess. On the plus side, just like when Ford pardoned Nixon, it would be a strong admission that a crime had in fact been committed. Not much of a silver lining, but with this administration i'll take what i can get.:P
Yeah, obviously no attorney in the Bush DoJ is going to go after the telecos for breaking federal laws. I'm not sure how a pardon would work though; I thought that could only be applied when someone was actually convicted of something. It may very well be that the next Justice Dept would be able to prosecute if they wanted to. Which if true would make Obama's decision far less disappointing, since after all if he gets elected and then prosecutes that's much better than allowing a civil suit. That's a big 'if' of course.
he's a constitutional scholar - retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional under Article I Section 9 US Constitution.
so in effect that language in the bill is powerless and Obama knows it
Um... No, because in Constitutional cases the Ex Post Facto clause has always been interpreted to mean that you can't make a previously legal action retroactively illegal, then charge someone with a crime for taking the action during the time in which it was legal.
Making things that used to be illegal retro-actively legal is considered acceptable, and often it's a good thing such as preventing people who helped slaves escape from being prosecuted for that criminal act after slavery was abolished.
However all this law really does is make the telecoms immune from civil lawsuits. It doesn't change whether or not their actions were legal, it simply prevents anyone from taking them to court over it, unless they're a government prosecutor bringing a criminal case. I don't think the case for unconstitutionality is very strong.
Was it an "entirely different species" or was it just an adaptation? Could you cross breed this "new" version of citrate metabolizing E. Coli with the original strain? Is so, then it's not really a new species, just the same with a new ability.
Ah, the meaningless macro/micro distinction.
Okay, look, it's like this. You believe, due to the evidence, that evolution can cause adaptations and new abilities in a species, and pretty substantial ones at that.
Now (and assume a sexually reproducing species here, it makes it easier to make the distinction), imagine you separate a species into two geographically separate populations. Each would then undergo its own random development of abilities and adaptations, just as you believe the unified population would. Now, is there any reason to believe that one of these adaptations couldn't impact the reproductive cycle (everything from a change in how fertilization occurs to an alteration in number of chromosomes), such that were you to bring the two geographically separate populations together, they would be physically incapable of producing viable offspring?
At that point, they are different species, and as they continue undergoing adaptations, the differences between them would increase to arbitrary levels. What was once the same type of organism is now two different types, neither completely resembling the original.
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution. None. If you believe a bacteria can evolve to metabolize a completely different food source than it used to, then there is no reason at all not to believe that an ancient ape could have evolved into separate populations of chimpanzee, orangutan, and homo sapien.
Also, given 20+ years and 44,000 generations to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, how long does it take to evolve into a platypus?
Gee, I dunno, around 500 million years give or take? I mean I have no idea exactly when platypi evolved, that's just how long it was from the start of the Paleozoic to Cenozoic era. I really don't get why the jump is so difficult. Small changes happen fast, big ones take time. Where, anywhere, is anything to suggest that big changes aren't possible?
Agreed, it's abhorrent. But watch as I suggest separate prison facilities for gay prisoners, the tsunami of 'homophobic' comments that follow.
I don't care, though, when you lock up criminally insane* homosexuals or bisexuals with members of the same sex it's no different than locking up a criminally insane man with a woman, and this would not be tolerated. To be perfectly clear: Prison is the punishment. Getting fucked in the ass is only something that should happen consensually.
I wouldn't assume that prison rape has anything to do with homosexuality or bisexuality. You don't really think there are just huge numbers of gay inmates, do you? Prison rape is first of all like all rape about power and control. Second of all it's about "any port in a storm" if you catch my drift. Most of the guys who rape in prison would never think about having sex with a man when they get out. Because they aren't gay. So separating gay prisoners won't help.
The only reason why his testimony was the final nail in his coffin is because the jury care more about how eloquent he is compared to the DA or his lawyer or the judge.
No, dude, the reason his testimony was the final nail in the coffin is because the jury care about whether a person's story sounds plausible or more like complete bullshit made up to protect a guilty person. By testifying, Hans Reiser eliminated the nebulous specter of "reasonable doubt" where the jury can imagine any alternative explanation they care to, and replaced it with a simple choice: Is Hans Reiser's explanation for his actions remotely plausible? Answer: No, no fucking way. What explanation did that leave? That Hans was lying because the DA's explanation was (at least approximately) the correct one.
If Hans could have provided a plausible explanation for all the circumstantial evidence, then he probably would have walked. But gee, guess what? It's pretty hard to explain all the actions you took to cover up a murder as anything but what they are -- actions taken to cover up a murder.
"I sleep in my car, which was dirty, and thus I decided to hose down the upholstery (isn't that how everyone cleans their car and bed?), for the first time ever because it was only then I learned that cars don't have water drainage holes in the floorboard."
I don't care how eloquently you state that, it's going to sound like bullshit. And that's just one snippet from a long serious of actions that look like covering up a crime, but he gave some crazy illogical explanation for.
There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant an arrest, and even a conviction, though the latter is not a sure thing given only that evidence. Your ideas on evidence are woefully skewed; think for a second about the consequences of requiring a body before you can arrest someone. But that's not the issue. The issue is that Hans explanations of the circumstance around that evidence was such obvious crap, it eliminated all reasonable doubt. The believability of the defendant's testimony is evidence for the jury, and it was that which tied all the circumstances together and said he was lying to cover up his crime.
The justice system dodged a bullet here.
Yeah, no shit. If Hans was as smart as he thought he was and listened to his lawyer, instead of thinking he could spin some BS tale for the jury, then he, a murderer, might have walked. Thank God he's just an egomaniac and not actually all that clever!
Seriously, man, he murdered his wife long before he came up with his ridiculously stupid explanation for all the crap he did to cover it up, and you're saying the jury screwed up by calling him on that BS? That the justice system "dodged a bullet" because he really did turn out to be guilty, just like the evidence and his own testimony suggested? Ridiculous.
You'd think someone planning a murder and wanting to foil an investigation would buy the book BEFORE doing the deed. Another part was that he removed his cell phone battery to avoid being tracked--again AFTER the disappearance.
If it was preplanned there are a million less crazy ways he could have done it, such as hiring professionals from Russia or at least making better arrangements to get rid of the body far away.
Uh, sure, but if there's one thing (other than his guilt) we've learned from this it's that Hans Reiser isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thinks he is.
He could have had a plan before the murder, it just turned out to suck badly, so he got a book figuring he could just read it and become an expert on covering up crimes in two days, and again failed.
I'm not trying to make fun of prison rape, I'm just saying that judo will most likely be of little use in that environment.
Yeah, and acting like a tough guy cus you know judo will be a huge detriment*, so let's hope that he will finally learn to keep his mouth shut.
* To put the guaranteed violent gang bang such behavior would bring lightly... I mean holy shit how can we tolerate this in our prisons and act like it's not an 8th Amendment violation if we just let the prisoners do it to each other...
Oddly enough, that seems to fit the evidence better than premeditation. If he'd killed her with malice aforethought, I'd imagine he'd have been able to dispose of the body without so much mess.
I think that may be true, and I am thinking that the case for premeditation wasn't made very well. However, I'm not assuming his poor cover-up implies no prior planning. In his own testimony where he claimed he hosed out the car because he was sleeping in it and it was dirty, he said that he had simply assumed that there would be holes in the bottom of the car to let the water drain which is why there was a foot of standing water in it.
I think we can take that last statement at face value -- murder or harmless car cleaning, hosing off your car interior and expecting the water to drain is pretty silly, and shows a severe lack of practical knowledge. I mean, did he not know why they have vacuums at gas stations? Did he really think people cleaned their car upholstery with a hose?
What I'm getting at is that it is perfectly possible that he had a plan, it just turns out that -- surprise surprise -- programming knowledge doesn't automatically translate into real-world knowledge, and thus his plan was a shitty one. That may be why he only checked out the book after the murder, once he'd realized that bodies are a lot messier than he thought, and evidence a lot harder to clean up than he thought, and his plan was falling apart. "Ah I'll just do a little research and be caught up" he may have thought.
I'm not saying that's the case, but I am saying I'm not convinced it isn't. A badly done coverup doesn't mean much to me either way. It only means -- much like Reiser's attempt to testify in his defense -- that he isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thought he was.
That's why I don't believe for a minute that it was premeditated. The guy is too incredibly bad at lying to be a psychopath, IMHO.
The only aspect of lying that being a psychopath actually helps with is the part where you have to say the lie with a straight face and in a manner that implies that you yourself believe it to be the truth. For a psychopath speaking the truth is no different than speaking a lie if it suits them, so this part they're good at.
It does absolutely nothing as far as making the lie itself believable. A psychopath could say with a straight face "I hold no ill will against Mr. Smith and have not harmed nor desire to harm him" while stabs Mr. Smith in the neck repeatedly, but you sure as hell wouldn't believe him!
I have not witnessed Reiser's testimony, I've only read reports of some of his explanations. And he'd have to have one hell of a charismatic presence to make that crap believable -- again, not something being a psychopath automatically grants. Given that he went against his lawyer's advice in order to take the stand and present his pile of crap, it sure seems like he thought he'd be able to convince people with his honesty. Personally I think that suggests at least some psyco- or sociopathy.
And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.
Who said anything about morally justified? Well maybe that's what they meant, but I read it as simply saying that is what he might do.
People, normal human people, do things all the time for which there is no moral justification. They aren't people without morals, they are just people. And morals are a trapping over our primitive emotions that doesn't always hold them in check.
That's why we have the thing called the "crime of passion", and why premeditated murder is considered a more serious crime than coming home to see your spouse in bed with someone else and right then and there deciding to kill them. Especially when the perpetrator expresses remorse, demonstrating that they know there was no moral justification for it, then they end up with much reduced crimes and sentences. Even the law recognizes that people are human.
Not that I don't agree with you that it's wrong and morally depraved and what not. And I highly appreciate not wanting to be with a highly possessive and jealous person. But I think I should let you know that there are a lot of jealous people out there, and more importantly that if your SO ever catches you "in the act", you might suddenly find them to be more jealous and possessive than you ever thought possible.
The confession (proving that he knew were the body was) sealed the deal in any case, but better lawyers (ala OJ Simpson) might have been able to get him off by systematically breaking down the prosecution case and keeping their socially challenged client from opening his mouth or doing anything else odd in court, but Hans didn't have millions of dollars for a legal dream team so now he does 15 years instead.
Yeah, you don't need a million dollar legal team to get the advice "shut the hell up and let me do the talking", and a million dollar dream team won't do a lick of good if that advice isn't followed.
Sure, the amount of circumstantial evidence put Reiser in a serious bind. What damned him, though, was his own testimony. His lawyer told him to be quiet, and he wouldn't listen and demanded to be put on the stand. Then instead of having to decide whether the prosecution's case left room for reasonable doubt, instead they had to decide whether the prosecution's case was more believable than Reiser's explanation for his actions.
Unless this legal dream team also comes with legal permission to ignore their client's demands, and to muzzle him in court so he can't speak, then it wouldn't have done a lick of good. And if Hans had listened to the perfectly sensible and correct advice to shut his yap, his run-of-the-mill defense attorney may have been able to get him off. Neither of those things are true though.
And, now that "reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past, all I can say is THANK YOU FOR BEING STUPID HANS.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah unfortunately between your comment that you'd watch the movie and the other saying they should make the game, I'm worried that the only one who would option my script would be Uwe Boll.
Is this like your definition of "crazy" applying to all violent criminals regardless of the complete lack of psychological validity? Sorry, whether you understand it or not, it's just not the case. Prison is a pretty fucked up place, and like I said rape isn't about sexuality it's about power and control. Think for a second about the implications of your axiomatic definitions -- you're implying that homosexuals or bisexuals are more likely to be "crazy" and commit violent crimes. Maybe that seems logical to you. Doesn't matter. Separating everyone you could identify as either before incarceration would not in any way result in a reduction in prison rape in your hypothetical "straight man" prison.
GWASTED
Don't mind if I do!
World War III is starting? Oh god, I still haven't received my check from that Nigerian prince! And where's my viagra?
Yeah, because that's the first thing I'm going to be worried about when WWIII starts: Boners.
Though I guess it is a legitimate concern, due to the widespread boner shortage in the states in WWII, which didn't end until after the war when the market was flooded with them.
It's amazing how people can be tricked by something that is on its surface so laughable that it should be dismissed outright!
After all, how could World War III possibly have started when World War II hasn't even ended yet?! Just because there's no obvious troop movements or visible battles doesn't mean that merged ghosts of Churchill and Roosevelt along with their dark ally Zombie Stalin don't yet wage war against the forces of Hitler's Head and the demon-animated armor of Hirohito! No, you can see the effects of this conflict every day in the fluctuations of the price of milk to the record of the Essex cricket team. So don't believe anything you read about some ludicrous World War III until you see the purple flag of the Undying Allies flying over the White House, indicating our inevitable triumph!
After that, though, it's fair game.
I don't take such a dim view of WP as some, especially when the information has no real bearing on my life. :P
So yeah, Bush could just pardon them I guess. On the plus side, just like when Ford pardoned Nixon, it would be a strong admission that a crime had in fact been committed. Not much of a silver lining, but with this administration i'll take what i can get. :P
Yeah, obviously no attorney in the Bush DoJ is going to go after the telecos for breaking federal laws. I'm not sure how a pardon would work though; I thought that could only be applied when someone was actually convicted of something. It may very well be that the next Justice Dept would be able to prosecute if they wanted to. Which if true would make Obama's decision far less disappointing, since after all if he gets elected and then prosecutes that's much better than allowing a civil suit. That's a big 'if' of course.
this only shields them from civil suits, not criminal ones (as pointed out by someone else later in the thread)
You're probably thinking of the post you just replied to.
he's a constitutional scholar - retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional under Article I Section 9 US Constitution.
so in effect that language in the bill is powerless and Obama knows it
Um... No, because in Constitutional cases the Ex Post Facto clause has always been interpreted to mean that you can't make a previously legal action retroactively illegal, then charge someone with a crime for taking the action during the time in which it was legal.
Making things that used to be illegal retro-actively legal is considered acceptable, and often it's a good thing such as preventing people who helped slaves escape from being prosecuted for that criminal act after slavery was abolished.
However all this law really does is make the telecoms immune from civil lawsuits. It doesn't change whether or not their actions were legal, it simply prevents anyone from taking them to court over it, unless they're a government prosecutor bringing a criminal case. I don't think the case for unconstitutionality is very strong.
Was it an "entirely different species" or was it just an adaptation? Could you cross breed this "new" version of citrate metabolizing E. Coli with the original strain? Is so, then it's not really a new species, just the same with a new ability.
Ah, the meaningless macro/micro distinction.
Okay, look, it's like this. You believe, due to the evidence, that evolution can cause adaptations and new abilities in a species, and pretty substantial ones at that.
Now (and assume a sexually reproducing species here, it makes it easier to make the distinction), imagine you separate a species into two geographically separate populations. Each would then undergo its own random development of abilities and adaptations, just as you believe the unified population would. Now, is there any reason to believe that one of these adaptations couldn't impact the reproductive cycle (everything from a change in how fertilization occurs to an alteration in number of chromosomes), such that were you to bring the two geographically separate populations together, they would be physically incapable of producing viable offspring?
At that point, they are different species, and as they continue undergoing adaptations, the differences between them would increase to arbitrary levels. What was once the same type of organism is now two different types, neither completely resembling the original.
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution. None. If you believe a bacteria can evolve to metabolize a completely different food source than it used to, then there is no reason at all not to believe that an ancient ape could have evolved into separate populations of chimpanzee, orangutan, and homo sapien.
Also, given 20+ years and 44,000 generations to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, how long does it take to evolve into a platypus?
Gee, I dunno, around 500 million years give or take? I mean I have no idea exactly when platypi evolved, that's just how long it was from the start of the Paleozoic to Cenozoic era. I really don't get why the jump is so difficult. Small changes happen fast, big ones take time. Where, anywhere, is anything to suggest that big changes aren't possible?
Call it wishful thinking. :)
He could try suing the Florida bar in federal court, but the chances of the circuit court taking the case are pretty slim.
Yes, because of violent gay gamer conspiracy operating at all levels of the courts working against him!
Hey, with Jack out of the picture, someone has to step up to the plate at Crazy Bastard Memorial Field.
I've got to admit, after reading that, I'm really rather curious as to why he didn't shave!
Agreed, it's abhorrent. But watch as I suggest separate prison facilities for gay prisoners, the tsunami of 'homophobic' comments that follow.
I don't care, though, when you lock up criminally insane* homosexuals or bisexuals with members of the same sex it's no different than locking up a criminally insane man with a woman, and this would not be tolerated. To be perfectly clear: Prison is the punishment. Getting fucked in the ass is only something that should happen consensually.
I wouldn't assume that prison rape has anything to do with homosexuality or bisexuality. You don't really think there are just huge numbers of gay inmates, do you? Prison rape is first of all like all rape about power and control. Second of all it's about "any port in a storm" if you catch my drift. Most of the guys who rape in prison would never think about having sex with a man when they get out. Because they aren't gay. So separating gay prisoners won't help.
In fact, I'm downloading a demo of Blactivision's newest title
Sounds like the game company from a Dave Chappelle skit.
The only reason why his testimony was the final nail in his coffin is because the jury care more about how eloquent he is compared to the DA or his lawyer or the judge.
No, dude, the reason his testimony was the final nail in the coffin is because the jury care about whether a person's story sounds plausible or more like complete bullshit made up to protect a guilty person. By testifying, Hans Reiser eliminated the nebulous specter of "reasonable doubt" where the jury can imagine any alternative explanation they care to, and replaced it with a simple choice: Is Hans Reiser's explanation for his actions remotely plausible? Answer: No, no fucking way. What explanation did that leave? That Hans was lying because the DA's explanation was (at least approximately) the correct one.
If Hans could have provided a plausible explanation for all the circumstantial evidence, then he probably would have walked. But gee, guess what? It's pretty hard to explain all the actions you took to cover up a murder as anything but what they are -- actions taken to cover up a murder.
"I sleep in my car, which was dirty, and thus I decided to hose down the upholstery (isn't that how everyone cleans their car and bed?), for the first time ever because it was only then I learned that cars don't have water drainage holes in the floorboard."
I don't care how eloquently you state that, it's going to sound like bullshit. And that's just one snippet from a long serious of actions that look like covering up a crime, but he gave some crazy illogical explanation for.
There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant an arrest, and even a conviction, though the latter is not a sure thing given only that evidence. Your ideas on evidence are woefully skewed; think for a second about the consequences of requiring a body before you can arrest someone. But that's not the issue. The issue is that Hans explanations of the circumstance around that evidence was such obvious crap, it eliminated all reasonable doubt. The believability of the defendant's testimony is evidence for the jury, and it was that which tied all the circumstances together and said he was lying to cover up his crime.
The justice system dodged a bullet here.
Yeah, no shit. If Hans was as smart as he thought he was and listened to his lawyer, instead of thinking he could spin some BS tale for the jury, then he, a murderer, might have walked. Thank God he's just an egomaniac and not actually all that clever!
Seriously, man, he murdered his wife long before he came up with his ridiculously stupid explanation for all the crap he did to cover it up, and you're saying the jury screwed up by calling him on that BS? That the justice system "dodged a bullet" because he really did turn out to be guilty, just like the evidence and his own testimony suggested? Ridiculous.
You'd think someone planning a murder and wanting to foil an investigation would buy the book BEFORE doing the deed. Another part was that he removed his cell phone battery to avoid being tracked--again AFTER the disappearance.
If it was preplanned there are a million less crazy ways he could have done it, such as hiring professionals from Russia or at least making better arrangements to get rid of the body far away.
Uh, sure, but if there's one thing (other than his guilt) we've learned from this it's that Hans Reiser isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thinks he is.
He could have had a plan before the murder, it just turned out to suck badly, so he got a book figuring he could just read it and become an expert on covering up crimes in two days, and again failed.
I'm not trying to make fun of prison rape, I'm just saying that judo will most likely be of little use in that environment.
Yeah, and acting like a tough guy cus you know judo will be a huge detriment*, so let's hope that he will finally learn to keep his mouth shut.
* To put the guaranteed violent gang bang such behavior would bring lightly... I mean holy shit how can we tolerate this in our prisons and act like it's not an 8th Amendment violation if we just let the prisoners do it to each other...
But think about it. Then they might have to take responsibility if one of the stands they made backfired.
Ah shit, I hadn't thought of that. Run away! Run away!
Oddly enough, that seems to fit the evidence better than premeditation. If he'd killed her with malice aforethought, I'd imagine he'd have been able to dispose of the body without so much mess.
I think that may be true, and I am thinking that the case for premeditation wasn't made very well. However, I'm not assuming his poor cover-up implies no prior planning. In his own testimony where he claimed he hosed out the car because he was sleeping in it and it was dirty, he said that he had simply assumed that there would be holes in the bottom of the car to let the water drain which is why there was a foot of standing water in it.
I think we can take that last statement at face value -- murder or harmless car cleaning, hosing off your car interior and expecting the water to drain is pretty silly, and shows a severe lack of practical knowledge. I mean, did he not know why they have vacuums at gas stations? Did he really think people cleaned their car upholstery with a hose?
What I'm getting at is that it is perfectly possible that he had a plan, it just turns out that -- surprise surprise -- programming knowledge doesn't automatically translate into real-world knowledge, and thus his plan was a shitty one. That may be why he only checked out the book after the murder, once he'd realized that bodies are a lot messier than he thought, and evidence a lot harder to clean up than he thought, and his plan was falling apart. "Ah I'll just do a little research and be caught up" he may have thought.
I'm not saying that's the case, but I am saying I'm not convinced it isn't. A badly done coverup doesn't mean much to me either way. It only means -- much like Reiser's attempt to testify in his defense -- that he isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thought he was.
That's why I don't believe for a minute that it was premeditated. The guy is too incredibly bad at lying to be a psychopath, IMHO.
The only aspect of lying that being a psychopath actually helps with is the part where you have to say the lie with a straight face and in a manner that implies that you yourself believe it to be the truth. For a psychopath speaking the truth is no different than speaking a lie if it suits them, so this part they're good at.
It does absolutely nothing as far as making the lie itself believable. A psychopath could say with a straight face "I hold no ill will against Mr. Smith and have not harmed nor desire to harm him" while stabs Mr. Smith in the neck repeatedly, but you sure as hell wouldn't believe him!
I have not witnessed Reiser's testimony, I've only read reports of some of his explanations. And he'd have to have one hell of a charismatic presence to make that crap believable -- again, not something being a psychopath automatically grants. Given that he went against his lawyer's advice in order to take the stand and present his pile of crap, it sure seems like he thought he'd be able to convince people with his honesty. Personally I think that suggests at least some psyco- or sociopathy.
But OJ was found not guilty!
I personally think it was Milk...
And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.
Who said anything about morally justified? Well maybe that's what they meant, but I read it as simply saying that is what he might do.
People, normal human people, do things all the time for which there is no moral justification. They aren't people without morals, they are just people. And morals are a trapping over our primitive emotions that doesn't always hold them in check.
That's why we have the thing called the "crime of passion", and why premeditated murder is considered a more serious crime than coming home to see your spouse in bed with someone else and right then and there deciding to kill them. Especially when the perpetrator expresses remorse, demonstrating that they know there was no moral justification for it, then they end up with much reduced crimes and sentences. Even the law recognizes that people are human.
Not that I don't agree with you that it's wrong and morally depraved and what not. And I highly appreciate not wanting to be with a highly possessive and jealous person. But I think I should let you know that there are a lot of jealous people out there, and more importantly that if your SO ever catches you "in the act", you might suddenly find them to be more jealous and possessive than you ever thought possible.
The confession (proving that he knew were the body was) sealed the deal in any case, but better lawyers (ala OJ Simpson) might have been able to get him off by systematically breaking down the prosecution case and keeping their socially challenged client from opening his mouth or doing anything else odd in court, but Hans didn't have millions of dollars for a legal dream team so now he does 15 years instead.
Yeah, you don't need a million dollar legal team to get the advice "shut the hell up and let me do the talking", and a million dollar dream team won't do a lick of good if that advice isn't followed.
Sure, the amount of circumstantial evidence put Reiser in a serious bind. What damned him, though, was his own testimony. His lawyer told him to be quiet, and he wouldn't listen and demanded to be put on the stand. Then instead of having to decide whether the prosecution's case left room for reasonable doubt, instead they had to decide whether the prosecution's case was more believable than Reiser's explanation for his actions.
Unless this legal dream team also comes with legal permission to ignore their client's demands, and to muzzle him in court so he can't speak, then it wouldn't have done a lick of good. And if Hans had listened to the perfectly sensible and correct advice to shut his yap, his run-of-the-mill defense attorney may have been able to get him off. Neither of those things are true though.
And, now that "reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past, all I can say is THANK YOU FOR BEING STUPID HANS.
Step 1 should also include spare barrels, as there's going to be a lot of wear and tear on them due to all the necessary shooting.
Also, step 8 is hookers.