The state wants to kill AL's client. Really?

[Horace Finklestein]

I'm glad that sleutherontheside and others found and actually sat through AL's lectures to help us all better understand their strategy.

Does the state want to kill casey anthony? Yes..(despite what Ashton said) and I don't think the jury will have any problems hearing the defense phrase it that way. If that's all the defense has is "phrases and terminology" and deflecting from what their client did...they better find a different strategy.

Ashton's short speech on why the DP exists in this case is just a preview of how they will present this case to a jury... based on facts (3 pieces of duct tape) but also full of emotion.
Once the state does it's closing arguments, that's it. Slam dunk. The defense doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The state does want to kill their client. So do I. So do many others... even some of those who were anti-DP have changed their minds.

P.S Jbean, do they really list that on the death certificate after someone is executed? Homicide? Or am I misunderstanding you?

The state wants to PUNISH Casey. The state did not and does not randomly want to kill Casey. There is a difference.

 

[Reagan]

Well yes, they do want to punish her for her crimes. One of the punishments is death.
I never said they randomly wanted to kill her?
I think that if you kill a child in a horrific pre-meditated manner the way she did, the only suitable punishment is death. There's nothing random about that and I don't believe the State thinks so either.

I'm confused as to where you got the random part from my post. I don't think the State just pulled that out of a hat one day because they were bored. Obviously there are aggravating circumstances (ex. duct tape)

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Well yes, they do want to punish her for her crimes. One of the punishments is death.
I never said they randomly wanted to kill her?
I think that if you kill a child in a horrific pre-meditated manner the way she did, the only suitable punishment is death. There's nothing random about that and I don't believe the State thinks so either.

I'm confused as to where you got the random part from my post. I don't think the State just pulled that out of a hat one day because they were bored. Obviously there are aggravating circumstances (ex. duct tape)

I just don't think it's entirely accurate to say the state 'wants to kill' Casey.

 

[Reagan]

I just don't think it's entirely accurate to say the state 'wants to kill' Casey.

Is it just the wording of it? Kill? I mean someone chose to put it on the table, and that would be the State. They found her crime to be so heinous that they are giving a jury the option of executing her. If they did not want her executed/killed they would not give a jury that option. That's how I see it at least.

I respect your opinion and I think ultimately we will just have to agree to disagree onthis one.

 

[RR0004]

I just don't think it's entirely accurate to say the state 'wants to kill' Casey.

I also don't see a desire ("want") to do anything except uphold the law...and that is for the State to punish her for the crime she committed if/when convicted. In this case, it's to the full extent of what the law allows. I truly believe AL purposefully used the word to incite outrage at the system.

 

[Angel4u2Whisper2]

The word game is interesting. The state wants to "kill" my client. I agree she purposefully uses words that cause discomfort and possiably a sence of shame because she knows that there are people out there who really do wish that very same outcome for her client.

 

[Reagan]

I also don't see a desire ("want") to do anything except uphold the law...and that is for the State to punish her for the crime she committed if/when convicted. In this case, it's to the full extent of what the law allows. I truly believe AL purposefully used the word to incite outrage at the system.

Again, maybe it's the wording but I can agree with what you've said while still maintaining my opinion ...that the State does want to uphold the law. Thanks for posting, my friend!

Yes, AL purposefully said the word kill, but like I said earlier.. I don't think that's going to matter to a juror, especially after they hear the facts of the case. The defense needs a better strategy. The only hope for their client now is if they plea... but I don't think JB or KC's ego will allow it.

 

[Eidetic]

I would ask Lyons one simple question........if someone killed your child do you think they should receive the death penalty? It seems easy for someone to be against the death penalty when they have not had someone taken away from them by the hands of another person. When you have lived through that kind of pain it may be easier to agree with the death penalty. I personaly believe in the death penalty. What is the point in keeping a person in prison for life and making the state and it's people pay for a person that committed a murder (or more than one, whatever the case may be)? For me it is all about what the person deserves. If they kill someone and it is not in self defense then what gives them the right to breathe everyday, eat 3 meals a day, watch tv or enjoy any other day to day activities? They took a life and the punishment should be their own life in return.

MOO

Speaking metaphorically tonight, homicidal individuals are an absolute threat, a disease. I think of it as a horrible infection... would you rather take your chance if you suffered an injury to your hand that the wound wasn't dirty, how much could those medical bills amount? Or would you wash and disinfect that hand immediately?

Say they do get to live life in prison there is so much that ripples off of them (as very evident in this case) and her piss poor decisions affects many others. There is a very real possibility there may be another death resulting of Casey's existence.

OT, but not really in my opinion, I just watched Frailty for the first time in years today and rediscovered how awesome this movie is.

 

[Eidetic]

I can't help but wonder what influence prevented her from taking a plea early on in the case.

Was it because:
She was convinced by others that she could beat the charges?
She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face LWOP.
She was confident in her ability to cover her tracks, and assumed that she would be found innocent.
She knew she was innocent.

The statement by AL that "the State wants to kill my client" strikes me as odd in a subtle way. AL steers clear of mentioning Caylee by name instead, referring to her as the "kid" or "deceased". According to her own lectures....everything is about humanizing your client and dehumanizing the victim.....

That said.......WHY in the world would AL say in court that "the state wants to kill my client", instead of "the state wants to kill Casey Anthony"?????

Is that indicitave of her true feelings that KC is guilty, or because Casey sounds much like Caylee, or some other reason? I am big on word selection and semantics. We use words for a reason. What is her reason???????

Thoughts????

In case I haven't expressed this to you lately, you're brilliant. :twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

The state wants to PUNISH Casey. The state did not and does not randomly want to kill Casey. There is a difference.

Yes, I agree. The state does not want to randomly kill Casey.

Casey killed Caylee - the state calls that homicide, and it is against the law.
Casey may be killed, as a result of a guilty sentence, and the death sentence. That is legal.

I understand that M.Lyons does not believe in or support the death penalty. However, this case is being tried in Florida. Florida is a state that can legally apply the death penalty for especially heinous crimes.

My wish is that during the sentencing phase of the trial, the SA reminds the jury over and over again that Casey killed her own daughter, Caylee.

 

[joypath]

: SIGNIFICANTLY edited quote:

P.S Jbean, do they really list that on the death certificate after someone is executed? Homicide? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Hi! While I'm definitely NOT JBean to whom you addressed this comment, I am able to answer this based on experience. The standard death certificate has a section box # 37 (Manner of Death) with 6 categories; 5 are used for completed cases: Natural,Accident,Suicide,Homicide,Undetermined and then the choice of "pending further investigation"

By classical definition homicide "refers to the act of a human killing another human being", stealing from Wiki, "Homicides may also be non-criminal when conducted with the sanction of the state. The most obvious example is capital punishment in which the state determines that a person should die." Therefore, the classification of MANNER of death as homicide is correct, the CAUSE of death could be lethal injection, Potassium chloride & Pancuronium bromide.

And nope, no place on the certificate to add: THIS WAS DESERVED!

 

[Eidetic]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vjFJOaTMtg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vjFJOaTMtg[/ame]

 

[Reagan]

OT Sorry Mods...but I never noticed that you could see KC's creepy reflection in the mirror in that video of Caylee on the bed. Now i'm 100% sure that it's KC filming those weird videos where there is no interaction with Caylee. She gives me the creeps. I got the chills when I seen her in the mirror *shudder*

 

[flourish]

Dearest Flourish,
I cannot even imagine having to endure losing a child and then having to sit in a courtroom and hear a defense attorney dismiss the murder in that manner. What strength it must have taken to keep from pummeling him/her.

IMHO the victims of crime are all too often forgotten. You appearing at the sentencing had to be hard. Was your child's murderer given "life"?

I do not have any problem with the State of Florida or any State "killing" a person that would take their childs life. I say kill away.

I do not want to go OT, or make this "all about me," so I'm gonna make it brief and also address the thread topic

My son was injured at a few months old when his bio dad violently, and, unfortunately, I believe with intent to kill, shook him, blinding him and wounding him severely, but not immediately killing him. He was charged with a felony injury to a child, and took a plea agreement, but, in part thanks to my testimony at his sentencing, the judge over-ruled it and gave him the maximum sentence. My son actually died from the injuries a few months after his killer went to prison. While there is significant evidence that he died as a result of the daily multiple seizures which were the result of the shaking, for a variety of reasons the state did not choose to pursue further charges, and I moved away.

The worst part about the sentencing, even worse than the "she should have had an abortion" carp, was that when killer addressed court, he only had to face the judge. When I testified, first I had to say my address in open court then sit and face him and his family and a bunch of strangers who were there for no apparent reason while begging the judge to punish him to the fullest extent of the law.

Thank you all for your support and kind words, which truly mean a lot to me. Please ensure everyone you know understands the dangers of shaking a baby.

I agree that in a sense, the state does want to kill AL's client. However, there are many problems with that statement and it's appropriateness to the context. First, there's the "want," which implies an ability to desire. "The State" is technically a government establishment or entity or something, at least that's how I think of it, and therefore cannot "want" anything.

Although, technically, the voters make up the state, and have voted that they want people who kill other people to end up dead. The only way to legally make them end up dead is to kill them.

I guess when it comes down to it, it's not the word "kill" in that sentence which I really have the problem with, it's the word "want." She's trying to humanize the entity of "The State," in order to make Floridans and anyone else who supports the death penalty guilty feel "guilty" about it, and/or to deflect from the real issue, which is a duct-taped little mouth. And for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, too, and probably some we couldn't even guess. (Want to do a shout out here to sleutherontheside for her (yeah?) willingness to listen to AL's lectures so that I don't have to!)

While it's a great topic for hashing out, and royally ticks me off, as described earlier, I agree that this tactic won't really make a difference when the rest of the evidence is included in the picture.

Thank you for your time

 

[Spangle]

Flourish,
Thank you for sharing and I'm really sorry for your loss.

Earlier today I wrote a response, but I had computer trouble and lost everything. You pretty much said in your explanation some of what I was trying to get across.

The state can not 'want'. It's a word game. It's an attempt to vilify the jury, the Sa, the Judge.. everyone except the person who did the crime.

The punishment is in place not because the state wants to kill. It's in place to discourage folks from doing crimes. Hoping folks would fear death enough, to not do crimes that can incur the DP.

 

[logicalgirl]

Spangle, you have taken this topic to the obvious. Consequences. We all know every action has a consequence. We teach our children about consequences and I think it is the most important lesson they learn throughout their childhood.

One of the consequences of killing someone in the state of Florida is to be put to death. The death penalty was in place before Casey killed Caylee, and before M.Lyons appeared on the scene.

It is not the State who want to kill Casey. It is an inevitable consequence of Casey's actions should she be found guilty of these charges.

I used to tell my girls - look - don't argue about consequences - they are not moveable. You know the consequences so think carefully about your actions.

So the issue here is Casey didn't learn consequences or more likely, thought she was above them. We need to prove her wrong.

 

[The World According]

I do not want to go OT, or make this "all about me," so I'm gonna make it brief and also address the thread topic

My son was injured at a few months old when his bio dad violently, and, unfortunately, I believe with intent to kill, shook him, blinding him and wounding him severely, but not immediately killing him. He was charged with a felony injury to a child, and took a plea agreement, but, in part thanks to my testimony at his sentencing, the judge over-ruled it and gave him the maximum sentence. My son actually died from the injuries a few months after his killer went to prison. While there is significant evidence that he died as a result of the daily multiple seizures which were the result of the shaking, for a variety of reasons the state did not choose to pursue further charges, and I moved away.

The worst part about the sentencing, even worse than the "she should have had an abortion" carp, was that when killer addressed court, he only had to face the judge. When I testified, first I had to say my address in open court then sit and face him and his family and a bunch of strangers who were there for no apparent reason while begging the judge to punish him to the fullest extent of the law.

Thank you all for your support and kind words, which truly mean a lot to me. Please ensure everyone you know understands the dangers of shaking a baby.

I agree that in a sense, the state does want to kill AL's client. However, there are many problems with that statement and it's appropriateness to the context. First, there's the "want," which implies an ability to desire. "The State" is technically a government establishment or entity or something, at least that's how I think of it, and therefore cannot "want" anything.

Although, technically, the voters make up the state, and have voted that they want people who kill other people to end up dead. The only way to legally make them end up dead is to kill them.

I guess when it comes down to it, it's not the word "kill" in that sentence which I really have the problem with, it's the word "want." She's trying to humanize the entity of "The State," in order to make Floridans and anyone else who supports the death penalty guilty feel "guilty" about it, and/or to deflect from the real issue, which is a duct-taped little mouth. And for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, too, and probably some we couldn't even guess. (Want to do a shout out here to sleutherontheside for her (yeah?) willingness to listen to AL's lectures so that I don't have to!)

While it's a great topic for hashing out, and royally ticks me off, as described earlier, I agree that this tactic won't really make a difference when the rest of the evidence is included in the picture.

Thank you for your time

I am with you. Often times you will hear the prosecutors use the words " The people" when referring to their position.." The people request, or the the people rest"....etc. The reason for that is to remind everyone in the courtroom that these fine folks who are the prosecutors represent THE PEOPLE OF THAT COUNTY, THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THOSE LAWS AND WANT THEM.

This case is in good hands. Mr. Ashton negated every single thing the defense has done in a year and half with his five minute argument to the judge. Imagine what he can do with a trial.

 

[JBean]

I'm glad that sleutherontheside and others found and actually sat through AL's lectures to help us all better understand their strategy.

Does the state want to kill casey anthony? Yes..(despite what Ashton said) and I don't think the jury will have any problems hearing the defense phrase it that way. If that's all the defense has is "phrases and terminology" and deflecting from what their client did...they better find a different strategy.

Ashton's short speech on why the DP exists in this case is just a preview of how they will present this case to a jury... based on facts (3 pieces of duct tape) but also full of emotion.
Once the state does it's closing arguments, that's it. Slam dunk. The defense doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The state does want to kill their client. So do I. So do many others... even some of those who were anti-DP have changed their minds.

P.S Jbean, do they really list that on the death certificate after someone is executed? Homicide? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Bold for emphasis.
yes reagan it is because execution is homicide by definition and it is the only option that would apply for manner of death on a DC.
All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders. Self defense would be a homicide also. It only means dying by the hands of another. It is the circumstances surrounding a given homicide that make it a legal or an illegal act.

ETA: I see joypath said it better than I. thank you joypath