<p>Oops… Yes I did and yes you did say harm not ill will.</p>
<p>But then is that still any different? Is it morally “better” to not wish harm but wish a “long, hard road?”</p>
<p>I am merely asserting that it’s the same thing. Sometimes harm is preferential to a long, hard life…</p>
<p>I am also asserting that this animosity, and it IS animosity, leads to violence.</p>
<p>I know what you are asserting and I don’t agree - it’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are free to agree or disagree as you wish. Who am I to tell you that wishing a hard life on someone is morally wrong. </p>
<p>It’s not like I am Ghandi though he did say "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. "</p>
<p>A man that thinks hateful thoughts becomes hateful. FACT
Hate leads to violence. FACT</p>
<p>Shrug…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, 2/3rds of those polled think Casey got away with murder. An argument can be made that you don’t have to hold the rope or shoot the revolver to be “part of” the lynch mob.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t which is why “inciting a riot” is also a crime. Even if you don’t participate.</p>
<p>I think it is incredibly unfair to suggest and even insist that people who are expressing an opinion here are “inciting a riot”. Seriously.</p>
<p>Is the only way to NOT incite a riot to remain silent or pretend that we feel that Casey was innocent and wish her a long, prosperous life?</p>
<p>This sounds familiar to me, kinda like countries where dictatorships determine what the citizens can express and what they can’t.</p>
<p>We are still in America, aren’t we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So telling people they can’t think that others shouldn’t think bad is different how exactly??? Plus this whole “you can express what you want” in America is patently false… See Hate Speech crimes.</p>
<p>In any case, I’m not telling you what to think. I’ve clearly said I think she is involved someway in the death some time ago somewhere on this thread. I am also telling you that it’s wrong though to wish her harm, ill will or whatever. Morally, socially, spiritually and any other way you can think. </p>
<p>You can agree or not but those we as humans consider to be the best examples of kindness, nonviolence and whatever (Ghandi, Mother Theresa, MLK, etc) would and do agree with my view on that. </p>
<p>Many sit here in judgment of Casey Anthony because she possibly crossed what they consider to be an inviolable line. Yet you consider my opinion that those judging her are also crossing an inviolable line incredibly unfair???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, one positive idea is to do something to try to prevent child abuse in the future. Here is a list of ideas that relate to donations of time and or resources. I am not recommending any of them.</p>
<p>[Network</a> for Good :: Child Abuse](<a href=“http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/humanserv/child_abuse/]Network”>http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/humanserv/child_abuse/)</p>
<p>I don’t want Casey Anthony to be the victim of violence, but I also don’t want her to be the highly-paid star of a reality show or a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars.” I simply don’t want to hear any more about her. I am boycotting the Nancy Grace network, but I will also boycott any shows or news organizations or publishing houses that pay her to spout more lies about what happened to her daughter.</p>
<p>I’m not wishing bad stuff upon her, but I am hoping Casey Anthony has a chance to deal with the consequences of her actions and make amends for the poor choices she made. If the government and private organizations spent lots of money searching for a child she falsely claimed was kidnapped, she should have to pay back those funds before pocketing any money she earns from tell-all interviews and books. Likewise, she should be required to pay back the money she stole from her friend – and from her grandfather, if charges are filed against her for that. If she has trouble finding a terrific job because she stole from her friend, lied to police and everyone else, and dropped out of high school, so be it; I hope she works at a crummy low-paying job long enough to develop some good references. She won’t be the first person who has to do that. As many of us on CC know, she wouldn’t be the first person to have to work part- or full-time while going to college, either. </p>
<p>Lots of us have “long, hard lives” where we have to work for every dollar we have, rather than doing what we want while bamboozling others to pay our way. I hope Casey Anthony has that kind of life, rather than a Snooki-like one. Is that asking too much?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean more than in the approximately 1000 days in captivity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the difference. You are not just telling us that we shouldn’t “think bad”. Your telling us that our dialogue here where we are expressing our opinion, is tantamount to hate speech and inciting a riot. Expressing an opinion about the guilt or innocence of an individual, even after the trial is over, is not “hate speech”. Your argument is ridiculous and your thinking is convoluted.</p>
<p>Hate Speech:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.</p>
<p>Are you hoping this is Casey Anthony’s ticket to fame and fortune, 07DAD?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So very true! And that is why she is such a strange bedfellows with all the “well-meaning” posters who seem quite willing to dust off their pitchforks, and if not get the fire and stake ready, at least boll the tar and pluck some feathers. </p>
<p>Is anyone really suggesting that the foam at the mouth shown in this thread results from a rational consideration of all factors and a lack of sweeping judgmental statements? Channeling the Nancy Grace’s of this world does sound eerily familiar to the usual histrionics of Coulter. The only exception, perhaps, is that those two gracious persons do not need the support of a mindlike --and anonimous-- lynching mob. </p>
<p>Strange bedfellows indeed!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with what EPTR wrote above. </p>
<p>I can only speak for myself (though I truly observe a great many people on this thread who appear to have a similar thought as mine)…and that is, we are opining about a trial that was publicized. We think Casey had some involvement in her child’s death. Heck, some things are even proven such as her misleading investigators. She even admits to covering up an accident to appear as murder (that part is not proven but that was her story in court). It is a BIG leap from having an opinion about a case after reading or watching about it to claiming that those who think the defendant may not be entirely innocent (in reality, not proven in court) would want any harm to come to her. I don’t think having an opinion constitutes a lynch mob or desire that something befalls this young woman. Even the part that was proven (lying to police and leading people to search for her already dead child as missing) is really inappropriate behavior. For people to say that they do not respect such behavior doesn’t mean that they want some kind of harm to happen to the person who behaved so poorly. I know I surely don’t. And I REALLY find the people on some sites like the FB hating Casey site or some who go to the jail or where she lives or the trial and hold up signs wishing some terrible fate to happen to Casey are really disgusting. But that is NOTHING like having an opinion on a trial and an opinion about the behaviors of another person. On a much lighter scale, I can think of poor behaviors of people I personally know and do not think well of these negative behaviors but would never ever wish harm to come to that person.</p>
<p>I really do take offense at the suggestion that people on this thread, or a majority of them, by the mere fact that they are discussing the case and an opinion about the defendant’s behaviors, means that they want to incite riots, harm, ill will, etc. against this woman. They may not like her or that she has gotten away with having likely done some very bad things, but would never ever condone harm against her by others. And even if she was convicted, many here also would not have wanted her to get the death penalty. Nobody on this thread is saying, “kill Casey!,” etc. as seen on some hate sites which indeed do incite violence. Please do not mix up the civil discourse about a public legal case with hate speech and violence.</p>
<p>Denial Is Not A River In Egypt! </p>
<p>THIS world is a virtual one. It makes no difference that people would not harm someone physically. There is no need to have a physical interaction to express hatred.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly…</p>
<p>Denial runs deep.</p>
<p>No one “says” Casey should get the death penalty. No one “says” harm her. From some of the attitudes though you’d think excuse me, SOME people sure are hoping and praying for those things to happen.</p>
<p>If I wasn’t right some people wouldn’t be so angry or put off. 
They’d have shrugged off the opinion as an opinion or better yet, they would have known I wasn’t referring to them and ignored it.</p>
<p>To clear a point… I am not telling anyone what to think. Do as you wish. I’m not even telling you not to judge. Just don’t get mad that I judge you for judging her. Shrug… Quite simple…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what “this” refers to. Serving almost three years of a four year sentence for lying locked up in a tiny cell? If so, no. No fame, no fortune for doing a crime and doing the time.</p>
<p>Being unsuccessfully prosecuted for the death of Caylee? Well, whatever notoriety Casey has from that prosecution seems to have already occured, although it seems to have continuing significance to some. I’m not sure I’d call it fame. And, I also doubt that there will be any “fortune” for Casey. </p>
<p>I do think that probably the only way to reimburse/pay (1) the state of Florida, if it can establish its claim, (2) the Texas search group, if it can establish its claim, and (3) the lady suing for being slandered as “the Nanny,” if she can establish her claim, is from the compensation to be paid to Casey if she publishes or does interviews, etc. If these entities and the lady have valid claims, I hope that they will be paid.</p>
<p>That said, I would not be surprised if she committed suicide or is killed by someone in a misguided fit of “public service.” </p>
<p>If I ruled the world, she’d figure out a way to satisfy these claims if they are legit and then disappear into obscurity. In my part of Texas there has been a similar “not guilty” jury determination of the murder charges against T. Cullen Davis. Highly controversial at the time. Murdered child and all. Then he was acquitted of murder for hire of his wife during their divorce and of the judge presiding over the divorce. After all this, he is a Christian missionary now as I recall.</p>
<p>Nope. No wish for fame or fortune. Just that she be allowed to sink into obscurity, hopefully after she pays those claims and more hopefully into doing something that benefits others. After all, she was acquitted of the charges related to Caylee and has served her time for the lying. To me, she has paid her debt to society.</p>
<p>
Actually, there was no inconsistency in the two positions. On an individual level, the predictability of human behavior is low. It’s very difficult to separate out all of the variables which impel an individual to act in a specific way in specific circumstances.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the behavior of large groups of people is much more reliably predictable. Extraneous variables in individuals tend to cancel out and the conduct of the group can be foreseen. And there is a large group of people who are upset with the verdict in this case. It is not at all unlikely that out of that large group some member of the virtual mob will lash out, given the opportunity. (I guess that already has happened, with that nutball in Oklahoma who attacked someone with a daughter named Caylee who she thought looked like C. Anthony.)</p>
<p>I’ve been in mob situations. It’s truly remarkable how people can act. And if any of you have watched the TV show called “What would you do?” you’d note that while a number of people might stand by mute when an apparent problem is unfolding, the minute one person speaks up others do, too. The “cover” of the group gives individuals the courage to act out when they might not otherwise - for good or ill.</p>
<p>There is a lynch mob mentality afoot over this case. And it clearly has infected some posters on this thread. For those of you who can’t let go of the fact that Casey Anthony will not be found guilty, forcing yourselves to examine the bases of your own feelings - and how they’ve been manipulated - would be more worthwhile than continuing to deny the fact of your unhealthy obsession, IMHO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wasn’t part of the time she served related to the felony theft convictions for illegal use of her friend’s checks? If not, what was the sentence for those convictions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sentiments, exactly. And my guess is that some of these claims are being filed because of the $1 million offers being publicized for interviews. (The “nanny” lawsuit would not fall into this category.) If Casey does not choose to take the big bucks that come with interview and book deals, obviously those claims cannot and will not be paid. And I’m guessing most of those who filed these suits would be OK with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has puzzled me too. I found an internet article from January 2010 that said that after she pled guilty, Baez argued to the judge at sentencing that she had already served more time than the maximum sentences he could impose. The article said that the judge agreed and “sentenced her to time served.” </p>
<p>I guess that means she got credit again for the same time on the lying convictions. I am not at all sure how this worked.</p>