XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion
From: prochoice@here.now
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:39:49 GMT, "B. Kildow"
in alt.abortion with message-id
<4071661B.6020506@spamenot.foxinternet.net> wrote:
>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>> "Light Templar" wrote in message news
...
>>
>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Light Templar" wrote in message
>>>>news:...
>>>>
>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"B. Kildow" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:<406C362F.30301@spamenot.foxinternet.net>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Light Templar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Funny...the Montana State Constitution says in Article 2: "Section
>>>>>>>26. Trial by jury. The right of trial by jury is secured to all and
>>>>>>>shall remain inviolate. But upon default of appearance or by
>>>>>>>consent of the parties expressed in such manner as the law may
>>>>>>>provide, all cases may be tried without a jury or before fewer
>>>>>>>than the number of jurors provided by law. In all civil actions,
>>>>>>>two-thirds of the jury may render a verdict, and a verdict so
>>>>>>>rendered shall have the same force and effect as if all had
>>>>>>>concurred therein. In all criminal actions, the verdict shall be
>>>>>>>unanimous."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Care to show an amendment to that, Mr. Winn? And while you're at
>>>>>>>it can you tell me where you got that figure of "50,000,000" from?
>>>>>>>I'm still curious and still waiting. It's only been about a month
>>>>>>>now since I first asked you. Surely you can give me a cite for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>50,000,000 was my own estimate. I think you will find it to be
>>>>>>accurate enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show us what you based your estimate on, what is the basis for your
>>>>>estimate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>BK
>>>>>>>AA#1992
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then you need to actually fight for your rights in Montana. I
>>>>>>>>did some searching on the internet, and apparently every state I
>>>>>>>>researched, about ten of them so far, grants trial by jury if
>>>>>>>>demanded or when necessary. I will research Montana tonight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A state saying that they grant trial by jury and a state granting
>>>>>>trial by jury are two different things. You seem to have forgotten
>>>>>>about Nevada v. So and so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't live in Montana now. There was an article in the paper
>>>>>>before I left about how juries in misdemeanor trials were no longer
>>>>>>going to be required. What they based it on I could not tell you.
>>>>>>Probably on Nevada v. So and so the way all other states did.
>>>>>>Robert B. Winn
>>>>>
>>>>>Montana, like every other state in the union, is Constitutionally
>>>>>bound to provide jury trials. Jury trials are required in
>>>>>misdemeanor trials per state law where they are demanded by the
>>>>>defendant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I am sure that if a pro-abortion person were to appear before
>>>>the court, identify themself as such and request a trial by jury, the
>>>>court could do something to please that person.
>>>
>>>Everyone, no matter what their opinion on abortion happens to be, would get
>>>a trial by jury. Your position is logically bankrupt.
>>>
>>>Since I am neither
>>>
>>>>pro-abortion nor wealthy, there is no way for me to obtain trial by
>>>>jury in a pro-abortion police state.
>>>
>>>Absolute nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Believe whatever you want to believe. No one is going to force you to
>> live in reality.
>> Robert B. Winn
>
>Mr. Winn, you do that a lot--confuse belief with fact. People point out
>errors you make and you just blithely say, "Well, that's what I
>believe." I hate to be the 7 bazillionth person to point this out, but
>what you believe means nothing to the rest of the world. Facts have
>been presented to you about Montana state law reference jury trials. In
>your response to me, you admitted "I don't live in Montana now. There
>was an article in the paper before I left about how juries in
>misdemeanor trials were no longer going to be required.
As usual the Winnut has his facts totally screwed up. It is quite
possible that jury trials are no longer required, but that does not
mean jury trials are not available.
If a relatively simple case involving a minor offense with a minor
penalty involved is tried it is quite reasonable to have a judge make
the decision as long as all parties agree. There is no need to
involve the time and expense of a jury.
This is quite common.
As usual the Winnut takes one small point, distorts it beyond all
reasonableness, and hangs on like a pit bull. Since he is incapable
of being wrong he will never admit he has his foot firmly planted in
his mouth.
>What they based
>it on I could not tell you." A somewhat oblique admission of error on
>your part, but one none the less. Then, when someone confronts you with
>that fact again, you state: "Believe whatever you want to believe. No
>one is going to force you to live in reality." It's not a matter of
>belief, but one of fact. The only one here not living in reality is
>you. After having read a fair few of your posts, the only thing I can
>assume about you is that you live in your own personal fantasy land
>because you can derive comfort from it. Reality scares you. Women
>scare you. Anyone who believes differently scares you. Doesn't it
>strike you as being a sad way to run your life?
>
>BK
>AA#1992
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
