Comments on: L.A. Times Pretends to Know That Man Killed Nobody http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/ Harangues that just make sense Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:53:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: actus http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6918 actus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6918 So who can we say 'hasn't committed a murder.'? Just those with declarations of factual innocence? just those who haven't been indicted? So who can we say ‘hasn’t committed a murder.’? Just those with declarations of factual innocence? just those who haven’t been indicted?

]]> By: Xrlq http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6919 Xrlq Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6919 Actus, here's a radical idea: how saying "hasn't committed a murder" about those who haven't committed murders? Actus, here’s a radical idea: how saying “hasn’t committed a murder” about those who haven’t committed murders?

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6920 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6920 To that I'd add: if there's some question about whether you committed a murder, that should be acknowledged. Here, I don't know how Weinstein is so certain that this fellow didn't do it. Yes, the primary witness against him recanted -- but witnesses recant all the time, for all sorts of reasons. To that I’d add: if there’s some question about whether you committed a murder, that should be acknowledged. Here, I don’t know how Weinstein is so certain that this fellow didn’t do it. Yes, the primary witness against him recanted — but witnesses recant all the time, for all sorts of reasons.

]]> By: actus http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6921 actus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6921 But why do we need another suspect? Can't we have the first one have been wrong? But why do we need another suspect? Can’t we have the first one have been wrong?

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6922 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6922 Yes. Yes.

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6923 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6923 Who said we <i>need</i> another suspect to determine that the original is innocent? Not I. Who said we need another suspect to determine that the original is innocent?

Not I.

]]> By: Rod Stanton http://patterico.com/2004/12/12/ila-timesi-pretends-to-know-that-man-killed-nobody/#comment-6924 Rod Stanton Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2457#comment-6924 It looks like they are going to make another Prop 66 like attack on "3 Strikes". I read a few articles on their site which indicated how "unjust" the law is, in particular with regards to "inner city" youth (who are they?). I can not understand why these people turn a blind eye to the facts: 1.More people are in jail. 2. Less people are committing crimes. 3. The crime rate is down. Rod Stanton Cerritos It looks like they are going to make another Prop 66 like attack on “3 Strikes”. I read a few articles on their site which indicated how “unjust” the law is, in particular with regards to “inner city” youth (who are they?). I can not understand why these people turn a blind eye to the facts: 1.More people are in jail. 2. Less people are committing crimes. 3. The crime rate is down.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos

]]>