brock franklin

[def abc 1234]

Mr Bill can you point to even one single case where the prosecution sought a murder charge with the argument of accused having knowledge of the dangers of drinking and driving, and the defense won because that was not enough to prove malice?

You can't use cases that you have defended in your mind.

[Mr Bill]

def abc 1234 wrote:

No, you're great. You keep repeating the same old tired argument which hold no water.
The malice is getting into the car and driving intoxicated. He knew it was wrong and put others lives in danger, but he did it anyway.
That argument has won many convictions for similar type cases all across the country.
It is apparent that Mr Bill doesn't agree with it, and his sarcastic demeanor exposes his lack of willingness to hear the argument...but he is wrong, as evidenced by the number of convictions based upon that premise.

I get the biggest charge out of your style of arguing. You create a pretext and then project your opponent's argument (which you create) then you argue both sides. You're the Perry Mason of masturbation.
Let me try and make it clear to you. Brock Franklin's drinking and driving does not show malice. You have already failed this test time and time again.
Further if Brock was driving on the shoulder of the highway that would also show he was trying to avoid an accident.
You can nail Brock for negilence, stupidity and a horrible guy who is responsible for the death of two innocent people. I have no argument with any of that. What you cant do is prove "murder".
And ask yourself this genius. If the prosecutors knew they were going to charge brock with murder, they'd also know that their burden of proof would be very high. They never even conducted a reconstruction of the accident to find out exactly how the accident occured at what speed and what location of all the cars/drivers involved. Keep in mind this is a murder case and the state has no interest in proving how the murders occured! If it were a shooting you could bet crime scene investigators would have done their job.
If you were even a slightly reasonable and intelligent fella you might start to wake up to the fact that neither the DA or the defense engaged in any real investigation because both sides knew well in advance that there would be no trial and no examination of the prosecutions case.
The prosecutors handling of this case in collussion with George Laughrun is a bigger subversion of juctice than the car accident itself.
Let that kid Brock Franklin out of jail.

[Que Pasa]

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the Perry Mason of masturbation.

You just can't help yourself can you?

Good luck researching those cases where the defense against implied malice worked.

[abc]

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Brock Franklin's drinking and driving does not show malice.

Wrong. Case law supports that malice is implied when the accused has the following frame of mind: "I know what I am doing is very dangerous to human life, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway."

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Further if Brock was driving on the shoulder of the highway that would also show he was trying to avoid an accident.

It doesn't matter. He still was driving under the influence that he knew was dangerous...in fact these actions go even further to prove he knew it was dangerous...and he still hit and killed the other couple.

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
If the prosecutors knew they were going to charge brock with murder, they'd also know that their burden of proof would be very high. They never even conducted a reconstruction of the accident to find out exactly how the accident occured at what speed and what location of all the cars/drivers involved. Keep in mind this is a murder case and the state has no interest in proving how the murders occured! If it were a shooting you could bet crime scene investigators would have done their job.

So you know all of the evidence that was collected by the crime scene investigators? You know this because you were involved in what capacity in this case? Oh, just just an interested person on a message board. Don't pretend you have more information about the prosecutions case than you really do. We will never know what the prosecutions case was, because Brock plead out.

Go back to your google research on defense against implied malice.

[Mr Bill]

Que Pasa wrote:

<quoted text>
You just can't help yourself can you?
Good luck researching those cases where the defense against implied malice worked.

That's it?

You're still unbalanced. Why wish me good luck conducting a worthless search that I never promoted in the first place?

Are you reading messages from me that I cannot read? Cause I never wrote anything of the sort.

Good luck finding a shrink that can help you with your mental/emotional issues.

You argue for shiat. You argue issues that originate from your own mind, and not your opposition.

No wonder you cant grasp the flaws in the Brock Franklin case. You're still stuck in a quagmire of emotion.

PSII- I think you have a little of that insane Christian Fundie problem mixed in with the rest of the sludge floating around that empty head of yours.

[Mr Bill]

abc wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Case law supports that malice is implied when the accused has the following frame of mind: "I know what I am doing is very dangerous to human life, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway."
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter. He still was driving under the influence that he knew was dangerous...in fact these actions go even further to prove he knew it was dangerous...and he still hit and killed the other couple.
<quoted text>
So you know all of the evidence that was collected by the crime scene investigators? You know this because you were involved in what capacity in this case? Oh, just just an interested person on a message board. Don't pretend you have more information about the prosecutions case than you really do. We will never know what the prosecutions case was, because Brock plead out.
Go back to your google research on defense against implied malice.

If you can find anything about the accident then hats off to you. Because I cant. Not even the speed of the cars involved.

And driving on the shoulder of the highway implies just the opposite of malice. Besides there have been numerous wrong way drivers on I-485. Is this simply a highway used by wrong way driving murderers?
"Honey I'm go drive the wrong way on I-485, I just dont give a shit about my life or anyone else, and I wanna have me some fun".

[whatever]

abc wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if he was drugged,(btw, just because someone said it in court does not make it true or constitute valid evidence of a fact) he still was driving his car at the time of the accident. He should have never gotten behind the wheel if he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Yet he drove down the interstate. You say he was driving on the shoulder trying not to hit anyone...further evidence that he knew he shouldn't be driving...but he continued. Guilty.

Maybe not a valid proof of evidence , but Brought out by the ALE AGENT. There was something or he would not have said it did come up in the investigation. ALE AGENT said this. So Your can't say no one knew.
Some drugs make people halucinate also. Think about it. Have you ever halucinated. Things aren't real.
He does not remember getting in the vehicle. Someone else was supposedly driving. Yes I do believe the ALE AGENT., but I do believe they did not want to go further on in trying to find that out, since they had already with the media, made it only a drunk driving case. Too much mud on the prosecutors face. Couldn't have that. NONONO!

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe not a valid proof of evidence , but Brought out by the ALE AGENT. There was something or he would not have said it did come up in the investigation. ALE AGENT said this. So Your can't say no one knew.
Some drugs make people halucinate also. Think about it. Have you ever halucinated. Things aren't real.
He does not remember getting in the vehicle. Someone else was supposedly driving. Yes I do believe the ALE AGENT., but I do believe they did not want to go further on in trying to find that out, since they had already with the media, made it only a drunk driving case. Too much mud on the prosecutors face. Couldn't have that. NONONO!

It still does not matter if he was drugged. He was driving the car under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. Implied malice means that he knew that drinking and driving was dangerous and he drove anyway. It doesn't matter even if he was unconcious, which is highly unlikely since he was see swerving, and he must have been concious enough to put the car in gear and drive onto the interstate. These are not valid defenses against the the charge of 2nd degree murder with implied malice.

Maybe you and Mr Bill should do some legal research. It is apparent that you don't like the outcome of this case but it has legal substantiation.

Besides it is way past the point of trying to get Brock out of jail.

People should be worrying about the civil case and the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal cases. Robin is going to have her work cut out for her.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
You argue for shiat.

Well at least def argues the issues. All you do is attack the person. That's what little kids do on the playground. You have yet to address an argument against implied malice. All you can say is "it isn't malice and by the way you masturbate." A genius!

[Mr Bill]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
Well at least def argues the issues. All you do is attack the person. That's what little kids do on the playground. You have yet to address an argument against implied malice. All you can say is "it isn't malice and by the way you masturbate." A genius!

Personality #3 is it? Please show me where I dont argue the issues?

You dont argue for "shiat" either. But that's not surprising considering youre the same idiot from Lexington NC.

[Mr Bill]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
It still does not matter if he was drugged. He was driving the car under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. Implied malice means that he knew that drinking and driving was dangerous and he drove anyway. It doesn't matter even if he was unconcious, which is highly unlikely since he was see swerving, and he must have been concious enough to put the car in gear and drive onto the interstate. These are not valid defenses against the the charge of 2nd degree murder with implied malice.
Maybe you and Mr Bill should do some legal research. It is apparent that you don't like the outcome of this case but it has legal substantiation.
Besides it is way past the point of trying to get Brock out of jail.
People should be worrying about the civil case and the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal cases. Robin is going to have her work cut out for her.

Drinking and driving does "not" mean that he knew what he was doing was dangerous.

This is the same misnomer that your idiot alter ego "DEF" tried to foist on us.

[whatever]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
It still does not matter if he was drugged. He was driving the car under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. Implied malice means that he knew that drinking and driving was dangerous and he drove anyway. It doesn't matter even if he was unconcious, which is highly unlikely since he was see swerving, and he must have been concious enough to put the car in gear and drive onto the interstate. These are not valid defenses against the the charge of 2nd degree murder with implied malice.
Maybe you and Mr Bill should do some legal research. It is apparent that you don't like the outcome of this case but it has legal substantiation.
Besides it is way past the point of trying to get Brock out of jail.
People should be worrying about the civil case and the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal cases. Robin is going to have her work cut out for her.

The point is : He did not know what he was doing.
You keep saying he knew not to drink and drive.
But you have know idea what mental state Brock was in when they left the party and what or where Brock was left.
As for Mom , get off of that, she is not was that allows just anything.
You people have know idea what kind of people you are talking about. Mom , was not at the party, she did not do this. And Brock would have never done this. It wasn't just a drunk driving issue, many people from that party played a hand in this. Not all, but many.

[whatever]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
It still does not matter if he was drugged. He was driving the car under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. Implied malice means that he knew that drinking and driving was dangerous and he drove anyway. It doesn't matter even if he was unconcious, which is highly unlikely since he was see swerving, and he must have been concious enough to put the car in gear and drive onto the interstate. These are not valid defenses against the the charge of 2nd degree murder with implied malice.
Maybe you and Mr Bill should do some legal research. It is apparent that you don't like the outcome of this case but it has legal substantiation.
Besides it is way past the point of trying to get Brock out of jail.
People should be worrying about the civil case and the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal cases. Robin is going to have her work cut out for her.

It does matter if Brock was drugged !
That would make a lot of difference.

[Mr Bill]

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>
It does matter if Brock was drugged !
That would make a lot of difference.

Whatever,

It appears we wont be hearing from "Def", "Wasted Days" ever again. Please read the sad news.

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/...

[breaking up]

Jeremy Parrinello " AKA Big Ice"
whats a goon to a goblein
"summer hatin cuz im hotter then the sun, spring hatin cuz i never sprung, winter hatin cuz im colder then yall.. n i will never ever fall"
Male
20 years old
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina
United States
Last Login: 7/4/2008
Mood: indescribable
Contacting whats a goon to a goblein
whats a goon to a goblein when there beef i dont disguss whodi outta line whodi gunna get his head buss

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

Mr Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Please show me where I dont argue the issues?

Please show cases of a successful defense against the implied malice concept of a 2nd degree murder charge involving drinking while under the influence.

Your opinion is not a valid argument. You won't provide any evidence of a successful defense, you will continue your ad hominem attacks.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>
It does matter if Brock was drugged !
That would make a lot of difference.

Not from a legal point of view. It is understandable that you want to believe that it makes a difference in the conviction of Brock. But it wouldn't have had and it didn't.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is : He did not know what he was doing.

That's not a valid defense. Anyone can drink until they black out, pass out and not be cognizant of what they are doing, get in their car and drive into someone else and kill them. No knowing what your are doing is not a defense.

[whatever]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
It still does not matter if he was drugged. He was driving the car under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. Implied malice means that he knew that drinking and driving was dangerous and he drove anyway. It doesn't matter even if he was unconcious, which is highly unlikely since he was see swerving, and he must have been concious enough to put the car in gear and drive onto the interstate. These are not valid defenses against the the charge of 2nd degree murder with implied malice.
Maybe you and Mr Bill should do some legal research. It is apparent that you don't like the outcome of this case but it has legal substantiation.
Besides it is way past the point of trying to get Brock out of jail.
People should be worrying about the civil case and the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal cases. Robin is going to have her work cut out for her.

I hope you don't have children or never do, they wouldn't stand a chance with the law or a father like you.

And don't you worry about Robin , she has done nothing wrong. The only thing she did was take care of her son.!!!

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Think about the 3 hrs. they had this kid in the interrogation room.

Only l l/2 hrs. is accounted for.
They said things on there that Brock didn't say.
Think buddy. If you are in law. I would think or hope you would have taken better care of your client and his family. If not you do not deserve to be in law.
It should have only been about that night, instead they focused on the community.

The ALE AGENT knew something happened. I wish Putnam would come foward.

But it's Marsha Goodenow's game, with George on her skirt tail or pants tail should I say.

[Mr Bill]

Wasted days Wasted nights wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not a valid defense. Anyone can drink until they black out, pass out and not be cognizant of what they are doing, get in their car and drive into someone else and kill them. No knowing what your are doing is not a defense.

This is a ridiculous argument and goes against the very tenant of the staute/definition of murder.
Knowing what you are doing goes to state of mind.