Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Okay, here's one so Teddy will not feel left out.
... no, not Teddy Kennedy — how would you do that?Turn the two O's into the tops of beer mugs.But this is an amazing come-back for Jackson. There's no way he would have gotten this treatment before he died
I don't think it's accurate at this stage to say that he was "murdered." Homicide embraces more than just murder, the facts so far look like a negligent killing. I think you could accurately say he was "killed."
Turn the two Os into the tires of an overturned, submerged Oldsmobile?
I don't get it. Is Michael Jackson being caught up to heaven?
What a banal country we live in.Or is it just Google that's banal?I'm going to say both/and.
We have a problem. A lot of famous people have died recently, and many of them lead quite honorable lives without abusing themselves, or children, or killing anyone.Is it really that hard to be famous without being far less decent than the average person? Is it hard to find an honorable celebrity to honor? As Socrates would say: "WTF?"
Let's talk about the people, Ann.You've been commenting quite a bit about the media deathfest for Ted Kennedy. But the people don't give a hoot. If you're not plugged into the incestual and dysfunctional marriage of politics and media, you might think Ted Kennedy died a year ago.It's just like the thing with Tim Russert-- a top-down post-humous publicity effort concocted by political and media elites. It's advertising. Propaganda.It don't matter to the people though, except insofar as they see it on the nightly news and in the NY Times, and either let their minds wander for a few minutes or skip to the next article. The people want to dance! They like the music! Google gets this, the mainstream media (which is just a branch of political establishment now anyway) doesn't. Which one is the future??? You gonna bet on the NY Times or on Google as the place where the people will turn to for that thing that used to be called "news"?By putting Michael Jackson up there today despite the official government/media line that we are supposed to all be in mourning for Ted Kennedy, Google just declared its victory once and for all over mainstream media. It's the end now. See 'ya.
I had an IV the other day for a routine colonoscopy (I'm over 50). Just before the anasthesiologist put me out he told me he was using papafol, which he said, is extremely safe, but in combination with other drugs, it can kill you -- I said, "That's interesti..." but before I could finish the sentence, I was out.It was indeed a total sleep. When I came back out the nurse told me she was against universal health care (she thinks doctors will leave the system), and gave me some stock tips.she said I should try to figure out which companies Obama favored, and to invest in those for quick, short-term gains... Or maybe I was still dreaming.
In honor of Ted Kennedy?"GOOGLE" => "GURGLE" for the day.Oh, that's so wicked!
Diamondhead : I don't get it. Is Michael Jackson being caught up to heaven?For Kennedy they could change the socks and flip the shoe image horizontally!
Never take a stock tip from a physician.The heat in the stock market seems to be mostly in financials, companies that the government is heavily invested in, and many of those would otherwisw have junk-bond status, or not be trading at all, if not kept propped up. Why do I suspect that Treasury and National banks are "circulating" money into this to prop up their own holdings, and the Obama white house? I wish I knew more about this, sometimes
I don't think it's accurate at this stage to say that he was "murdered." Homicide embraces more than just murder, the facts so far look like a negligent killing. I think you could accurately say he was "killed."A misapprehension of what the term "homocide" covers seems to bea recurring theme with our resident law professor. I'm resisting the thought, but I find myself wondering if she knows.
A misapprehension of what the term "homocide" covers seems to be recurring theme with our resident law professor.Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Titus lately? Now I'm worried.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
@G Joubert I'm using the word "murder" for rhetorical effect, not in the sense of a prosecutor deciding which statutory crime to charge, but it is nevertheless the case that "murder" under the Model Penal Code includes the situation where you've killed someone "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."
Well said Barristers, Michael Jackson was killed (allegedly) by medical providers who recklessly have him dangerous medications. Could be construed as 2nd degree murder.And for the best Ted Kennedy comment so far, that honor goes to Jim Treacher: We could have once more seen Camelot Ascendant, were it not for Excalibur being denied to the Rightful Heir by the Lady in the Lake...
I should add that the traditional hardcover dictionary definition of murder -- definition #1 -- is the unlawful killing of a person. Thus, as a writer in the English language, I stand 100% behind my use of "murder" in the case of Michael Jackson.
Also, G. Joubert, if you're going to pose as a pedant, you ought to spell the word you're posing about correctly.
Mary Jo Kopechne refused to comment about today's installment, in spite of a Constitutional bias against aristocracy, of Teddie Kennedy as a "Prince of the Nation!" Also, I do like G. Joubert's use of "homocide," even if a tad anti-PC and certainly misspelled to boot!
Poor Titus too?, that's awful!
... no, not Teddy Kennedy — how would you do that?Easy. Like this:http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7937/googlekennedy.jpg(Word Verification: festopi ... a 3.1415 festapallooza baby!)
Assisted suicide is most accurate.
Kennedy and Jackson, two people who walked the face of the earth and left terribly ugly carbon footprints.WV: comenWhat Kirby Olsen was in when he received the stock tips.
"Assisted suicide is most accurate."Assisted suicide is self-murder with an accomplice.
Surprised to hear you, a lawyer, say that, after having just learned that homicide does not equal murder
she said I should try to figure out which companies Obama favored, and to invest in those for quick, short-term gains. She must receive The Motley Fools newletter.wv - lifyi: not relevant to this thread.
Speaking of Google, much can be learned by googling "alcohol," Ted Kennedy," "brain cancer," and "malignant gliomas."For example:The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer) of the World Health Organization has classified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen. Its evaluation states, "There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages in humans. …Alcoholic beverages are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."It is said that a drunk stops growing emotionally at the age at which he began serious drinking. That would probably be the age then of the unofficial self.[...]An alcoholic, especially at the age of 59 after years of habitual drinking, often finds it difficult to keep up with his work, or to keep a job at all. Alcohol punishes brain and body and wears them down.
extreme indifference to the value of human life. I doubt the doc was indifferent to the value of Jackson's life. He killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, after all. He was an incompetent and a spineless lackey, giving in to a rich and famous addict's demand for oblivion at the expense of whatever professional responsibility and judgment he ever had. It's a stretch (or a tabloidean slip) to call that murder.
I use the Motley Fool for recommendations and my portfolio is up 90% since Feb. Of course, it is still down from a year ago. I have no stocks in the financial sector. The current administration has me very bearish long term, but the crazy anti-government mob running rampant has me very encouraged. So as usual I have no idea what to do, so I come here to drown my worries in the intoxicating gallows verse, hoping to live as long as Teddy, without falling apart like Michael. Michael should have blogged; he might be alive today. He seemed in some measure to have died of loneliness.
"Surprised to hear you, a lawyer, say that, after having just learned that homicide does not equal murder."1 I'm not just a lawyer and I'm not talking about the meaning of a legal statute. I'm using the English language with its dictionary meaning of a long-established word. People writing statutes cannot change those words except for legal purposes. Thus, murder could be defined by statute as only premeditated murder, but that would not deprive us English language speakers of the word meaning what it has come to mean in the process of language-making. It would make us wrong if we were to assert that a prosecutor could charge someone with murder under circumstances where there was no premeditation. But that isn't what we do when speaking, and I don't accept a limitation imposed on me because I'm (arguably) a lawyer. I'm not required always to speak using words that are sometimes terms of art as if I am always using them in that way. I won't be put in the box you'd put a lawyer giving an official legal opinion. If I want to give a legal opinion, I'll make it clear I'm doing that. Here, I'm calling something murder as a matter of my own opinion. I'm in no way purporting to tell you exactly what a criminal statute means.2. Even if "homicide does not equal murder," some homicide is murder under the statutory law, and conceivably the Jackson killing is the subcategory of homicide that is murder.
Jason, if I understand you correctly, ouch!
Ann,Is it possible to murder someone by omission?For example: If I drive a car into a pond, and then sit idly by while someone in the backseat dies of suffocation as the air pocket they are breathing slowly fills with their own carbon dioxide ... would I be guilty of murder?
Google is banal and ultra-leftist.
David:I didn't know Gloria was sick.
WSJ defined homocide this morning as death caused by another person (it doesn't decide whether this is intentional or not -- I assume that murder would cover the intentional category?).
Also, G. Joubert, if you're going to pose as a pedant, you ought to spell the word you're posing about correctly.Hey, I'm not posing as anything, and I thought I was being tactful. But since you are not, I'll add this: resort to the ridicule of typographical errors as argument rarely passes as profundity, leastways not on the Internet. It may somewhere else where pedants dwell.Second, you _still_ haven't evidenced a handle on the word. And I'm still not saying you don't know, I'm just saying I'm not seeing it. "Homicide" in the way the LA County coroner is using it DOES NOT imply murder or necessarily even anything untoward. It just simply means he died at the hands of another person, nothing more, nothing less, which is entirely consistent with the Webster's definition.
FLorida, see "criminally negligent homicide". here's tennessee's statute as a random example: " For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:1 (1) that the defendant's conduct resulted in the death of the alleged victim;and (2) that the defendant acted with criminal negligence. “Criminal negligence” means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint."
The more I see this abortion the more I think the next step in the programme is to have the word Google positioned directly over the shark.
From a old song written by another popular king and musician:"Low born men are but a breath,The high born are but a lie;If weighed on a balance, they are nothing;Together they are only a breath."Only a breath...To draw air into the lungs, to inspire, links to the Latin words "inspirare, spirare, to blow into or upon, to breath". To inspire is also defined as having "an animating effect upon; to influence, stimulate, or impel; especially to simulate or impel some creative or effective effort.In terms of inspiration, Kennedy and Jackson both run the gamut from pity to adoration. In terms of their effect a similar spectrum exists.
"You, (arguably) a lawyer!"By the way, I'm a big fan of separating word usage into common and specialized meanings. Words can, otherwise, become simply another attempt at domination. They then lose their strength of communication across specialized boundaries. I think that's why Althouse (the blog) attracts so many commenters from a variety of backgrounds. Words can be words rather than weapons. We can just chat here, with a strong tendency towards the poetic rather than legalese. In other news, California is on fire again. My brother just got evacuated. Lives right by JPL, not far from the Rose Bowl. I'm not worried about his house, the firefighters are great and know their job. But, it's a big bother. My sister in law was planning a big birthday bash--Fiesta themed. Now canceled. Alas.
"homocide"Is there such a thing as a heterocide? I looked this up on urban dictionary but decided not to post the definitions found there.
Shortest path through the thesaurus from homicide to celebrationhomicide bloodshed carnage shambles chaos tumult excitement jubilation celebrationWe're missing the excitement element.
G Joubert "you _still_ haven't evidenced a handle on the word. And I'm still not saying you don't know, I'm just saying I'm not seeing it. "Homicide" in the way the LA County coroner is using it DOES NOT imply murder or necessarily even anything untoward. It just simply means he died at the hands of another person, nothing more, nothing less, which is entirely consistent with the Webster's definition."You're assuming I am restricting myself to what the coroner, within his professional scope of practice, was able to say. I'm not.What we know is that a particular drug killed Jackson. We know that from the coroner, and it's homicide, within that narrow view, because someone gave him the drug. Now, I make additional inferences about the behavior of the doctor. The coroner didn't do that, because it's not his job. I did that. Why don't you?
Post a Comment