Lethal combination of drugs found in Aaron Douglas' body

[Orange_Crush]

At no point does the above post come even remotely close to articulating anything that could even be loosely analogized to a rational, coherent thought. We are all much much dumber for having read it.

OK... whatever... :ermm:

Way to sidestep a discussion and short-cut a response.

I guess you slept through basic logic and debate class. Run along and go mudding or something...

 

[kidbourbon]

OK... whatever... :ermm:

Way to sidestep a discussion and short-cut a response.

I guess you slept through basic logic and debate class. Run along and go mudding or something...

That could be it. Or it could be that nothing you wrote was sensical enough to warrant dignification by way of substantive response. Yes yes....I'm quite sure it's the latter.

 

[HSVol]

Would AD still be alive if someone had not provided the fatal concoction that was found in his system?

Should people with weight issues blame McDonald's for their obesity?

 

[Orange_Crush]

That could be it. Or it could be that nothing you wrote was sensical enough to warrant dignification by way of substantive response. Yes yes....I'm quite sure it's the latter.

Let me try again then...

Our society has deemed many drugs controlled substances because misuse is dangerous and potentially lethal. Due to the dangers associated with the usage of these substances, you must be educated and licensed to prescribe or distribute these substances.

If a person licensed to prescribe or distribute these drugs does so in an irresponsible way, there are repercussions. If they do so and someone dies because of the actions, they are found criminally negligent, and possible even charged with homicide/manslaughter.

Now, with these societal standards, how can we view drug dealers any better?

Did I type that slow enough for you to comprehend now, bourbon?

My other question was whether AD would still be alive if someone had not illegally provided illicits drugs to him. That is the operative question. And I repeat, I am not saying that he is not responsible for his own actions. I am merely stating that the person(s) that illegally provided illicit drugs that caused his death shares a bit of the blame.

Drug dealers profit from the suffering of those who are locked in the self-destructive prison of addiction and are pure trash.

To the poster above that made the McDonalds reference... Comparing illicit drug use to Big Macs is asenine. If you can't see the difference between the destructive affects of hard drugs, or the helplessness of those addicted to them, then you are... better left unsaid so that I can continue posting on this fine site.

Good day to each of you.

 

[easleychuck]

Poor decisions get folks into big time trouble all the time. This time it got someone killed and it was not the fault of these 4 people that a 21 year old adult did this to himself. The article is totalling misleading. These charges must be for allowing underage folks access to alchohol at a party that they were hosting at a property that had their names on the lease.

How the dots connect to any drugs that AD took of his own free will seems to be a stretch.

 

[HSVol]

It's all about personal choice. Period.

IMO, you shouldn't be more angry at a drug dealer because of the result of the transaction. It's still wrong. There's no such thing as a responsible illegal drug transaction. So why differentiate?

My original McDonald's analogy was meant to illustrate the shirking of responsibility. The dealer didn't kill AD anymore than the cook at McD's makes people overweight. Drug abuse kills, McD's as a staple of a daily diet causes obesity.

 

[Escape Goat]

Do you even read? Really...? :ermm:

From my post:

Lol!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Orange_Crush]

Poor decisions get folks into big time trouble all the time. This time it got someone killed and it was not the fault of these 4 people that a 21 year old adult did this to himself. The article is totalling misleading. These charges must be for allowing underage folks access to alchohol at a party that they were hosting at a property that had their names on the lease.

How the dots connect to any drugs that AD took of his own free will seems to be a stretch.

Sorry. I never intended my points toward these people. My points are a response to those who seem to think that drug dealers have no moral accountability for the effects of their actions. Hard drugs are a pestilence. Those who profit by feeding them into the lives of addicts should pay. That's all I am saying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kidbourbon]

Let me try again then...

Our society has deemed many drugs controlled substances because misuse is dangerous and potentially lethal. Due to the dangers associated with the usage of these substances, you must be educated and licensed to prescribe or distribute these substances.

If a person licensed to prescribe or distribute these drugs does so in an irresponsible way, there are repercussions. If they do so and someone dies because of the actions, they are found criminally negligent, and possible even charged with homicide/manslaughter.

Now, with these societal standards, how can we view drug dealers any better?

Did I type that slow enough for you to comprehend now, bourbon?

My other question was whether AD would still be alive if someone had not illegally provided illicits drugs to him. That is the operative question. And I repeat, I am not saying that he is not responsible for his own actions. I am merely stating that the person(s) that illegally provided illicit drugs that caused his death shares a bit of the blame.

Drug dealers profit from the suffering of those who are locked in the self-destructive prison of addiction and are pure trash.

To the poster above that made the McDonalds reference... Comparing illicit drug use to Big Macs is asenine. If you can't see the difference between the destructive affects of hard drugs, or the helplessness of those addicted to them, then you are... better left unsaid so that I can continue posting on this fine site.

Good day to each of you.

Okay, let me be explicit that I'm not sure whether you are actually a full ruhtard. But what you are saying is the silliest thing I have ever heard, and indeed it isn't even internally consistent.

1. What drugs did AD have in his body at the time of death?
2. Was it something other than valium, painkillers, and muscle relaxants?
3. Where do you think he got an amount of those drugs large enough to kill a man his size? In case you don't know the answer to this question, I will give you a clue: kids at parties don't sell valium, painkillers, and muscle relaxants in bulk. His drugs were his own.
4. So, by your rationale, shouldn't the pharmacist that dispensed the drugs be charged with a crime? Because surely if AD had been fully informed of the dangers, he wouldn't have taken so many, right? I mean, it had to be that he wasn't made aware of the dangers of the drugs. Certainly it couldn't have been that he was well aware of the dangers of the drugs, but was an addict and so he took them anyway because they got him high.
5. Or should his physician be charged with a crime because obviously AD wasn't aware of the dangers of the drugs as you have so aptly articulated. And so it has to -- I repeat it just has to -- be directly caused by lack of appropriate disclosure and counseling by one of the pharmacist who dispensed the drugs or the doctor who prescribed the drugs. Yes yes...they are surely responsible for AD's death.
5. Actually, hold on, could it be that AD was prescribed drugs to take over a period of time, but then he up and decided to take them that night so he could get high and have a better time? But gosh darnit, he wouldn't have done that if he was informed, right? Because if people are informed, they always act accordingly, right? I mean, that's what you've been saying, and you're obviously really really smart, so it must be true. It cant' possibly be the case that whether AD got his drugs from a guy on the street or a pharmacist by a desk, the decision of whether to take those drugs responsibly or irresponsibly was a decision that he himself had the independent free will to make.

Actually...I'm done here. I have pretty decent chops as a writer, and am simply unable to express the amount of sarcasm necessary to fully illustrate how retarded everything you wrote in your post actually is.

And, to be clear, you could write it as slow as you want, and it's gonna come out on the screen just as retarded.

Physicians get charged with manslaughter in situations like Michael Jackson's physician, where there was constant supervision and knowledge of how much of a certain substance he was taking. Dr. Feelgood off the street who sells me some blow or Phillipa Pharmacist who dispense me some painkillers or Danny Doctor who prescribes me those painkillers...well they have no idea whether I"m gonna take them responsibly, or whether I'm gonna pop open the bottle and down them all at one time with a single swig.

Let me repeat: what you have said is so moronic that I cannot begin to even properly articulate how moronic it really is.

You are awarded no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

 

[kidbourbon]

Sorry. I never intended my points toward these people. My points are a response to those who seem to think that drug dealers have no moral accountability for the effects of their actions. Hard drugs are a pestilence. Those who profit by feeding them into the lives of addicts should pay. That's all I am saying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Then you don't believe in:
1) the right to contract
2) free will
3) the idea that choice have consequences

Drug dealers exist because buyers want to buy what they are selling. And these were all prescriptions drugs? Why is this quaker going off on his ridiculous and completely intellectually bankrupt diatrible about drugs?

Have you ever done drugs? Did you die?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bourbon... We seem to be missing each other. Let me state explicitly:

If AD got his drugs through legitimate channels and abused them then shame on him alone. If he got them through illegitimate channels then the person that provided them is partially culpable. My reference to "illegal" and "irresponsible" proves that you either didn't understand my point or just purposefully created a strawman. Either way, I don't care.

Good day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then you don't believe in:
1) the right to contract
2) free will
3) the idea that choice have consequences

Drug dealers exist because buyers want to buy what they are selling. And these were all prescriptions drugs? Why is this quaker going off on his ridiculous and completely intellectually bankrupt diatrible about drugs?

Have you ever done drugs? Did you die?

We are done. You do an amazing impersonnation of a ******bag.

 

[kidbourbon]

Bourbon... We seem to be missing each other. Let me state explicitly:

If AD got his drugs through legitimate channels and abused them then shame on him alone. If he got them through illegitimate channels then the person that provided them is partially culpable. My reference to "illegal" and "irresponsible" proves that you either didn't understand my point or just purposefully created a strawman. Either way, I don't care.

Good day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

He obviously didn't get massive amounts of muscle relaxers from the kids at the party. Who is more likely to get enough muscle relaxers and pain pills to kill a 300lb man: a college football player who is often injured and gets them all the time...or some random guy?

They were quite obviously his own pills.

But you appear to be missing the fundamental point. The question of whether he got them from a legal source or an illegal source is quite irrelevant. The source -- legal or illegal -- has no culpability as to ADs death. None. And just to be clear, there isn't a set of laws in any civilized country that would allow the question of illegally acquired vs. legally acquired to have any bearing whatsoever on the question of culpability of the death for someone in ADs situation.

I understand exactly the point you are trying to convey; I'm just telling you that it is completely wrong...and a very radical departure from any set of laws written by a reasonable set of human beings.

 

[kidbourbon]

We are done. You do an amazing impersonnation of a ******bag.

Strong comeback.

You do an amazing impersonation of somebody advancing an unreasonable position. Probably best that you are done.

 

[Orange_Crush]

He obviously didn't get massive amounts of muscle relaxers from the kids at the party. Who is more likely to get enough muscle relaxers and pain pills to kill a 300lb man: a college football player who is often injured and gets them all the time...or some random guy?

They were quite obviously his own pills.

But you appear to be missing the fundamental point. The question of whether he got them from a legal source or an illegal source is quite irrelevant. The source -- legal or illegal -- has no culpability as to ADs death. None. And just to be clear, there isn't a set of laws in any civilized country that would allow the question of illegally acquired vs. legally acquired to have any bearing whatsoever on the question of culpability of the death for someone in ADs situation.

I understand exactly the point you are trying to convey; I'm just telling you that it is completely wrong...and a very radical departure from any set of laws written by a reasonable set of human beings.

Then obviously you don't understand my point. My statement was that if we hold "legal" sources accountable, we should hold "illegal" sources accountable. Obviously suppliers of overdosed drugs are held accountable.

Man Charged With Murder In Mass Overdose That Killed 1 CBS Minnesota

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/18783109.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/drugs/T114UL5PFPKTUDD24

As to your bolded statement:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/03/man_charged_with_murder_in_her.html

Louisiana's new law by which illegal drug distributors can face murder charges if their buyers lethally overdose is being applied to Solomon, one of the first such cases.

The amended second-degree murder law went into effect last year, carrying a mandatory life sentence upon conviction, just as if Solomon were accused of fatally shooting or strangling Schmidt.

Care to rethink Cochise?

 

[Orange_Crush]

And the hits keep coming...

Another Accidental Drug Overdose, Another Murder Charge | The Canyon Rehab Blog

Here’s another case of someone being charged with murder when their “crime” is giving their prescribed medication to a friend. And in this case, the person being charged is a big-eyed 19 year old boy, Nikolas Ramiro Flores.

Doctor charged with murder in overdoses - Nursing for Nurses

Suspect charged with murder in Boynton drug overdose - Sun Sentinel

Now, I didn't know that AD ODed on a cocktail of pain meds and sedatives, and he very well may have obtained them over time, and the responsibility is all on him. I never said that the hosts of the party should be charged. I simply said that:

If the drugs were irresponsibly or illegally given, then there is shared culpability. I also said that illegal drug dealers are culpable and responsible for their part. If that in indefensible, then you aren't listening, reading, or thinking.

Keep the "impersonation" up, sir. You're making yourself look stupid. You've blamed that on having read one of my posts, but you obviously give me too much credit.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Indefensible?

Untitled Document

Thirteenth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney Robin Carroll added the charge of capital murder Wednesday to the string of charges faced by Stephen Meeks, 26, of El Dorado.
The Dec. 23, 2009, death of William Lee Boyer, which was due to a reported overdose or lethal mixture of drugs, prompted capital murder charges against Meeks.
“Union County has suffered the deaths of at least four young adults since November 19, 2009, caused by overdoses of prescription drugs,” Carroll said.
“It’s an issue our office, the Union County Sheriff’s Office, the El Dorado Police Department and the Drug Task Force are taking very seriously. It’s a critical issue for us to educate the public, and would-be dealers and users of the implications of selling and using prescription drugs illegally,” he said.

Although the Meeks case is an unusual one, a subsection of the Arkansas Code Annotated which deals with homicides states that a capital murder charge is supported if a person acting alone or with one or more other persons “commits or attempts to commit a felony violation of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (defined in A.C.A. Section 5-64-101 through 5-64-508) involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance."

Supply drugs to overdose victim = Murder charge - The Corroboree

Second-degree murder charges were filed Friday against an Oklahoma City pharmacist accused of illegally dispensing prescription drugs to a woman who later died of a drug overdose.

Florida Panhandle Nurse Practitioner Coalition - ENP Network

"Unfortunately you'll find perpetrators in every walk of life and in every station in our community. This reflects that. If you're going to harm others, this office can build a case with the help of our law enforcement partners and we're going to try to hold you accountable," he said.

Prosecutors presented these charges to the grand jury at a time when "pill mills" are proliferating and more doctors are nabbed writing illegal prescriptions. Just last week, the FBI raided three Palm Beach County pain clinics that authorities say were catering to out-of-state patients who would use or resell the drugs at huge profits back home.

 

[kidbourbon]

I like how you didn't quote the previous paragraph:

Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe said the case is "unusual," but his office did handle the 2005 case of Jupiter doctor Denis Deonarine who was acquitted on a first-degree murder charge on a patient overdose case.

Since you seem intent on doing research -- possibly rooted in a desire to be judged not fully retarded by your more articulate friends -- ind me a conviction in a case where the facts are in any way shape or form similar to ADs.

Now go.

 

[kidbourbon]

I like how you didn't quote the previous paragraph:

Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe said the case is "unusual," but his office did handle the 2005 case of Jupiter doctor Denis Deonarine who was acquitted on a first-degree murder charge on a patient overdose case.

Since you seem intent on doing research -- possibly rooted in a desire to be judged not fully retarded by your more articulate friends -- find me a conviction (i.e. not a mere charge, smart guy) in a case where the facts are in any way shape or form similar to ADs.

Go!

 

[Orange_Crush]

I like how you didn't quote the previous paragraph:

Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe said the case is "unusual," but his office did handle the 2005 case of Jupiter doctor Denis Deonarine who was acquitted on a first-degree murder charge on a patient overdose case.

Since you seem intent on doing research -- possibly rooted in a desire to be judged not fully retarded by your more articulate friends -- find me a conviction (i.e. not a mere charge, smart guy) in a case where the facts are in any way shape or form similar to ADs.

Go!

I didn't need to include the previous paragraph, Einsten. Are you dense or hoping that I'm dense enough to let you do that?

Aquittal/Conviction? That's irrelevant, though I'm quite sure convictions are on the books. You stated that:

But you appear to be missing the fundamental point. The question of whether he got them from a legal source or an illegal source is quite irrelevant. The source -- legal or illegal -- has no culpability as to ADs death. None. And just to be clear, there isn't a set of laws in any civilized country that would allow the question of illegally acquired vs. legally acquired to have any bearing whatsoever on the question of culpability of the death for someone in ADs situation.

I understand exactly the point you are trying to convey; I'm just telling you that it is completely wrong...and a very radical departure from any set of laws written by a reasonable set of human beings.

Is it not convenient for you to be so incredibly clear anymore, Cochise? Now, you want to change your criteria to convictions (though, I'm sure they would be found). Pick a line and stay of it, Einstein. Changing your argument after being brutally assaulted with facts is the sign of either a lack of intelligence, a lack of respect for truth in a rational discussion, or both.

Just to allay any chance of misunderstanding between us, I laid my points out specifically. You claimed to understand and still made a bunch of pitifully uninformed and rediculous rebuttals. After providing factual support of my position, you return with this?

To review: My position has been that

(A) if AD got his drugs through legitimate means, he has sole responsibility.
(B) if he got them through illegitimate means, the supplier has partial culpability.

You said (so very eloquently) that those thoughts are irrational, retarded, etc, and that there is no set on law on any books that would support my assertions.

I gave ample evidence to the contrary, that there are laws that arrest Drs, Pharmecists, friends and drug dealers for illegally prescribing or distributing drugs.

I'll requote the most pertinent paragraph, as opposed to the diversion you hope people are stupid enough to take. Just one of many laws on civilized society's books:

Although the Meeks case is an unusual one, a subsection of the Arkansas Code Annotated which deals with homicides states that a capital murder charge is supported if a person acting alone or with one or more other persons “commits or attempts to commit a felony violation of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (defined in A.C.A. Section 5-64-101 through 5-64-508) involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance."

Comprende?

Also, I loved your implicit admission:

Since you seem intent on doing research...

Muhahahaha! That is rich! Allsome!

Translation 1: "Since you seem so intent on wanting to have an actual factual basis for your side of this exchange..."

Translation 2: "Uh, oh... That hurt..."

Implicit Translation: "I admit that I'm not prepared for this exchange."

Your only recourse throughout this entire exchange has been to wave something shiny, hoping people would be stupid enough to be enamoured with it, and then call people retarded, irrational and stupid to divert attention away from the fact that you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Pitiful.

Truly pitiful.

 

[kidbourbon]

To review: My position has been that

(A) if AD got his drugs through legitimate means, he has sole responsibility.
(B) if he got them through illegitimate means, the supplier has partial culpability.

You said (so very eloquently) that those thoughts are irrational, retarded, etc, and that there is no set on law on any books that would support my assertions.

I gave ample evidence to the contrary, that there are laws that arrest Drs, Pharmecists, friends and drug dealers for illegally prescribing or distributing drugs.

I.

Preliminarily

a. First things first, did you just dismiss the difference between an acquittal and a conviction like it was no big deal? I'm fairly certain you did, and I'd love to hear some additional thoughts from you on the matter. Because my understanding is that it is a rather significant distinction, but I respectfully invite you to present an argument to the contrary.

Why you aren't actually advancing an intelligible position:

1. You posted links to drugs dealers charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim. You posted links to pharmacists charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim. You posted links to doctors charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim.
2. So then what are the legitimate means of acquiring drugs?
3. It appears that what you have actually done here is defined "illegitimate means" to include anybody who dispenses drugs that then results in an overdose. And if you aren't, then please make a distinction.
4. When you try to make that distinction, I have a feeling that you'll find that find yourself agreeing with my position, or stating something that sounds a lot like it. If you recall, my position was that a doctor could be found culpable for the death of another in a situation like the michael jackson situation, where the doctor had sufficient knowledge such that he really should have had a decent idea that this was gonna kill his patient.

You really do need to find me a conviction for anything you've said to be worthwile. I am about to address the knowledge component, which would have to be proven to get a conviction for a common law murder charge (which will have different names in different states).

5. The MJ example is an easiest example you're going to find, thought, because he was literally attending by the guy's side ALL the time. Thus, the known or should have known standard is very much in play.
6. In the absence of that, I think the most level of culpability that you're going to find when you look to convictions and not mere charges*, a manslaughter charge based on recklessness. And you're most likely going to find this in the "pill farm" scenarios that used to pop up a lot in Florida.
7. The pill farm scenarios don't apply to AD.
8. No one else has the slightest touch of culpability in his death.
9. And for what to say initially (and this is how this all started) a statement to the contrary of #8, what was your rationale?
10. Had you simply not read the multiple articles about his autopsy and what was found in his system?

A tip: "rediculous" is not merely a misspelled word. It is a misspelled word that really shouldn't be misspelled by anyone past the age of 9.

*And this distinction is huge because the prosecutor is of course going to charge somebody with more than he knows he can get them on just because it makes it that much more likely that the person will plea-bargain down to something that isn't insignificant.

 

[lylsmorr]

Should people with weight issues blame McDonald's for their obesity?

Boom. End of argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Preliminarily

a. First things first, did you just dismiss the difference between an acquittal and a conviction like it was no big deal? I'm fairly certain you did, and I'd love to hear some additional thoughts from you on the matter. Because my understanding is that it is a rather significant distinction, but I respectfully invite you to present an argument to the contrary.

I was not dismissing the difference. I was pointing out that conviction was not a part of the criteria that you, yourself, set up. Remember? It was about laws, on books? I provided that.

You seem to have this overpowering need to misdirect, kid.

Why you aren't actually advancing an intelligible position:

1. You posted links to drugs dealers charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim. You posted links to pharmacists charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim. You posted links to doctors charged with some level of culpability for an overdose victim.
2. So then what are the legitimate means of acquiring drugs?

Um, obviously Drs and pharmacists that prescribed and filled in an appropriate manner. That was my whole point Einstein. You stated that whether the drugs were illegal or not had absolutely no bearing on the case. I proved differently.

3. It appears that what you have actually done here is defined "illegitimate means" to include anybody who dispenses drugs that then results in an overdose. And if you aren't, then please make a distinction.

Your inability to follow a discussion is striking. I provided a distinction above, for the 10th time! Do you just refuse to read, or do you have a learning disability?

4. When you try to make that distinction, I have a feeling that you'll find that find yourself agreeing with my position, or stating something that sounds a lot like it. If you recall, my position was that a doctor could be found culpable for the death of another in a situation like the michael jackson situation, where the doctor had sufficient knowledge such that he really should have had a decent idea that this was gonna kill his patient.

You're right. That sounds a lot like the position that I have stated specifically and clearly in multiple posts, but which you still said was untenable, irrational and indefensible. Yet again, you prove a striking inability to follow clear points, even when they are repeatedly stated in an a+b=c format.

Except, I opened it up to "any illegal" prescription, like the links I posted, and specifically, the law on the books that I linked to.

You really do need to find me a conviction for anything you've said to be worthwile. I am about to address the knowledge component, which would have to be proven to get a conviction for a common law murder charge (which will have different names in different states).

No. I don't. Try to keep up with your own criteria. I quoted a specific law on the books that parallels my position exactly. I can think of a very recent, and very public case that proves that conviction is not the greatest test for how well US law is applied.

5. The MJ example is an easiest example you're going to find, thought, because he was literally attending by the guy's side ALL the time. Thus, the known or should have known standard is very much in play.
6. In the absence of that, I think the most level of culpability that you're going to find when you look to convictions and not mere charges*, a manslaughter charge based on recklessness. And you're most likely going to find this in the "pill farm" scenarios that used to pop up a lot in Florida.

Or, you could read the law that I've posted twice already that makes no mention of "should-have-known". It just states that the criteria is "felony violation" involving delivery--. i.e. illegal delivery. Just like I stated.

For the THIRD time, kid...

Quote:
Although the Meeks case is an unusual one, a subsection of the Arkansas Code Annotated which deals with homicides states that a capital murder charge is supported if a person acting alone or with one or more other persons “commits or attempts to commit a felony violation of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (defined in A.C.A. Section 5-64-101 through 5-64-508) involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance."

7. The pill farm scenarios don't apply to AD.

Thanks for clearing that up.

8. No one else has the slightest touch of culpability in his death.

I've already stated on multiple occasions that is he obtained his drugs by legitimate means, he bears sole responsibility. Do you actually bother to read, or do you have a learning disability?

9. And for what to say initially (and this is how this all started) a statement to the contrary of #8, what was your rationale?

I've already written two clarifications and stated that when I wrote that, I did not know what was in his system. Also, the fact that my original statements were centered on "illegal\irresponsible delivery of drugs and "drug dealers", a person of even below average intelligence probably should have been able to comprehend that, even without the two clarifications that followed.

So, I ask again, do you actually read, or do you have a learning disability?

10. Had you simply not read the multiple articles about his autopsy and what was found in his system?

I've answered this twice that I had not. Do you actually read, or do you have a learning disability?

A tip: "rediculous" is not merely a misspelled word. It is a misspelled word that really shouldn't be misspelled by anyone past the age of 9.

Falling back to spelling ability is the last ploy of someone who has had their proverbial cheeks handed to them. But I will try to do better in the future. With that said, I'm not sure that a correct spelling would have made a lot of difference, considering my suspicion that you either choose not to read what I write, or have a very serious learning disability.

*And this distinction is huge because the prosecutor is of course going to charge somebody with more than he knows he can get them on just because it makes it that much more likely that the person will plea-bargain down to something that isn't insignificant.

Perhaps. But, and I repeat yet again... When there are laws on the books that describe both charge and sentence in cases where a person ODs because someone distributed drugs to them illegally, your distinction is misplaced.

When your criteria for my point was-- how did you put it...? Laws on the books of any civilized society? Your distinction is misplaced...

 

[kidbourbon]

Or, you could read the law that I've posted twice already that makes no mention of "should-have-known". It just states that the criteria is "felony violation" involving delivery--. i.e. illegal delivery. Just like I stated.

For the THIRD time, kid...

Quote:
Although the Meeks case is an unusual one, a subsection of the Arkansas Code Annotated which deals with homicides states that a capital murder charge is supported if a person acting alone or with one or more other persons “commits or attempts to commit a felony violation of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (defined in A.C.A. Section 5-64-101 through 5-64-508) involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance."


..

Stop screaming.

I didn't respond because the statute in question is obviously just a narrowly tailored codification of common law felony-murder. Felony-murder is kinda like murder in name only, and I really didn't feel like getting into its technical nuances as my post was long enough and it was not my intent to get into a hyper technical legal discussion (and also I had a lady friend on the way and yeah.... (‪I Just Had Sex (feat. Akon)‬‏ - YouTube )).

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can debate the wisdom of the felony murder rule at your own convenience; I have always thought it a bit contrived.

 

[kidbourbon]

I've answered this twice that I had not. Do you actually read, or do you have a learning disability?

I was the one who read the articles.