<p>There is nothing wrong with generating hypotheses. Thats perfectly reasonable. But to me (and apparently only to me) there is a big difference between postulating something like “his behavior makes me wonder if he may have some age- related cognitive changes going on, that perhaps may have exacerbated some underlying character traits that he is less able to inhibit” vs" he has some power trip and was ****ed because he was disrespected and maybe he was drinking and is a mental case and his wife didn’t intervene because she’ll get beaten up at home" (exaggerated for purpose of demonstration- or how it sounds to me). I dot know this man from Adam’s housecat, but this thread at times reads like that British tabloid.</p>
<p>Sugar high? (Sounds better than Twinkie Defense.)</p>
<p>jym, perhaps for us posters to better understanding our wrongdoings, you should post us quotes from the posts that were out of control rather than comparing understated and overstated exaggerations.</p>
<p>@NewHope</p>
<p>Ahh, but the Twinkie defense could hold. Twinkies went out of business, right? They just started back. He could’ve overindulged. Lost his mind. Lost his control. and BANG! </p>
<p>That’s why he did. ;)</p>
<p>Consolation- I almost spit out my water!! Good one!</p>
<p>BTW, I sent an email to the person who I suspect will be doing the eval on this fellow. He will not be able to say a word, but if Reeves is sent for an eval, and is sent to my friend, this person will do a fair and thorough job. I did inquire as to whether he thought FL might try to pass a “no texting and popcorn eating” law…</p>
<p>There is no such thing as the twinkie defense, Another myth.</p>
<p>The myth is the Twinkie defense doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>[snopes.com:</a> The Twinkie Defense](<a href=“http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.asp]snopes.com:”>The Twinkie Defense: Debunking the Myths and Misinformation | Snopes.com) Here is the explanation</p>
<p>False. Snopes is in on it. Snopes receives about $5 million worth in Twinkie products annually to keep quiet about the Twinkie Defense. You’d read about it on Snopes, but…you get the picture.</p>
<p>No, niquii. At the Dan White trial, there actually was no “Twinkie defense” used at trial, nor testimony that eating Twinkie’s caused Dan White’s diminished capacity, nor even that Dan White had eaten a Twinkie at all. Rather, a dramatic change of diet was one element used to illustrate that a mental illness reduced White’s competence to commit the offense. The Snopes article explains it. see [snopes.com:</a> The Twinkie Defense](<a href=“http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.asp]snopes.com:”>The Twinkie Defense: Debunking the Myths and Misinformation | Snopes.com)</p>
<p>The media created “The Twinkie Defense” for a story that sold better. It seems easier to attribute the reduced conviction to something laughable than to explain the subtleties of the American justice system to the public.</p>
<p>The cake is lie, jym.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Might be as sane as you and I, jym, but he certainly does look oddly out of step with the geriatric set. Usually, the “you’re disrespecting me” excuse for pulling a gun is used by the young ones.</p>
<p>All of this thread seems to be speculation, postulating so not sure where the dividing line would even be where somebody’s take on things is okay and another’s seems “disrespectful?”</p>
<p>Catahoula,
I don’t know if he is as crazy as Bat $h*t or is an arrogant old curmudgeon. I am just not willing to call him names.</p>
<p>That’s the thing, sevmom. None one has the authority to point fingers and shame the speculating masses because they view such acts as “distasteful”. At least no one who does such a thing and then commands respect.</p>
<p>Question:</p>
<p>I know in many (all?) states a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband (and the same is true for husbands), but if she so chooses, is she allowed to, or is this the equivalent of attorney-client privilege?</p>
<p>If she’s feeling a bit bold, she can.
[Spousal</a> privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege]Spousal”>Spousal privilege - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>*Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant.</p>
<p>Good grief, niquii. Try to read more carefully. The suggestion is that we not use derogatory terms when talking about this guy, or any guy when we discuss the events. My concern is that we not try him in the court of public opinion. Calling this guy names, whether we find that he deserves it or not, is premature and unkind. Maybe I choose to take a “wait and see” approach because of the perspective I have from my work experience. Regardless, if you want to pick a fight or bait a poster, please take it elsewhere.
Here’s something you might find interesting.
<a href=“http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-352.pdf[/url]”>http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-352.pdf</a></p>
<p>more about the “twinkie defense” (which is a fallacy) <a href=“http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/twinkie-defense/[/url]”>Thomson Reuters Law Blog;
</a></p>
<p>While I’m not ruling out the possibility of mental illness, diminished capacity, or temporary insanity, I’m skeptical. There are too many examples of people in the news or in history who have demonstrated similar behavior because they felt entitled to throw their weight around by real or imagined sense of superior status and lose their tempers when their commands aren’t obeyed at all or in their desired timeframe. </p>
<p>Police officers, whether active or retired are perceived as one group with this possible tendency due to widespread reports police brutality or corruption cases in the news over the years…including here in the US. </p>
<p>Two recent ones in my local area include an 84 year old Chinese immigrant man who was manhandled by cops so badly he needed stitches on his face because of alleged jaywalking and couple of married academics who were recently vindicated by a judge’s ruling which found the cops had absolutely no grounds in handcuffing and manhandling a man in the midst of suffering a heart attack because of a bad reaction to prescribed drugs. In the latter case, the married academics stated in the interview that this treatment was retaliation for past public criticism of police misconduct. </p>
<p>From history, I read a passage from an 18th century Japanese document which stated how the social structure/practices of the time not only allowed members of the daimyo/samurai class to not only expect all commoners and lower folks to bow deeply and otherwise show deep deference, but also to immediately use their swords to chop their heads off without trial or second thought if they perceived receiving any disrespect from any of them. If anything, this power-tripping practice was encouraged/expected of the elite daimyo/samurai class of that era to “ensure the lower orders knew their place”.</p>
<p>Today’s non-offensive labels become tomorrows pejoratives. And, sad to say, someone else usually takes it upon themselves to determine when they’ve crossed the international dateline.</p>
<p>Consider me chastised, jym, and the speculation I embedded the profanity in, discredited.</p>
<p>Cat,
You are probably right about the turns of phrases and the meanings they may take on. But not understanding why you are feeling chastized … ahh unless you are referring to the “head case” line… I said I found it unpleasant. But apparently thats just me.</p>