Nanner Split said:

On the contrary, I think it's a very reasonable assumption. It means you don't just take what's on the page for granted without questioning its value, and I'm of the opinion that critical thinking is one of the most important skills a person can have.

 

I just think that is a bit like this: Two nights ago around midnight I was cruising down the highway at close to 110 miles an hour when I see flashing lights behind me. I shouldn't have been going that fast, don't know what I was thinking. Anyway I pull over, reach into my glove box for license and registration, and roll down my window. I turn around just in time see a very angry cop approach the car and start screaming at me to get out of the f-ing car. I do so and he throws me down and kicks me around, then starts beating me with his club. I try to fight back but he is peculiarly strong. Finally I am able to get an arm up and reach for his head, as I grab his ear the side of his face tears off revealing neon green skin beneath. This freaked me out so I started to panic and struggle more, in response to this he pulled out a weird contraption I can't even begin to describe, put it to my temple, and that is all I remember. The exact next instance I recall is opening my eyes sitting in the driver seat of my car park on the shoulder of the highway yesterday around noon. I have no idea what happened during those twelve hours. Needless to say, I am pretty freaked out. Today I've been having some really weird sensations in my stomach... like there's... something moving around in there. I have a doctor's appointment scheduled in a couple of hours to get it checked out.

So, critical thinking caps on! What parts of this sensational story are true? Obviously not everything in there is out-of-this-world ridiculous, right? So does our critical thinking urge us to pick and choose? Well, C3PX could have been driving 110 miles an hour like an idiot and got a ticket, but his car sucks, no way that thing was going 110, surely he embellished it. Shall we throw that one on the "very likely true" pile with the assumption he was speeding but not going 110?

The cop yelling at him and beating him up unprovoked? Not out of the realm of possibility, but extremely unlikely (my personal view of cops will sway this one as well, if I think cops are generally good, I'll want to defend them and say "No way that happened!"; if I have strong feelings about what I believe to be rampant police corruption I'll ask C3PX if he happened to catch the guys badge number). One for the "guess it might have happened" pile, then? Seems pretty severe though, so I think we'd be better off assuming C3PX is once again embellishing. We can probably assume he talked back to the cop or he failed to pull over right away and made the guy chase him for several miles.

The cops face falling off revealing neon green skin? That goes to the automatic "BS" pile without question!

He has some vague stomach problem and has scheduled a doctor's appointment? Nothing really unbelievable about this, provided we assume the abdominal sensations have nothing to do with the outlandish claims about the green skinned cop or the claimed twelve hours of unconciousness. Conclusion: Some but not all of C3PX's story is true. Yay for critical thinking!

How about this for critical thinking? C3PX just told us a really crazy off-the-wall story, instead of assuming bits of it must be true for whatever reason, let's just assume he is one big bullshitter and disregard his whole tale; he obviously isn't a credible source of information. That is real critical thinking. Sure some things from that story may have happened, but a confirmed unreliable source automatically makes all data collected from that source extremely questionable at best. 

Come on Banana man, you've been part of the politics thread around here long enough to know that anything goes!   ;)

P.S. I do have a dragon in my garage. And a spaceship, too. No matter the fact that I live in an apartment complex that doesn't even have covered parking... :(  Excuse me, my dragon is hungry; I must go feed it live elk.

I am very skeptical of everything. I just think if we deem one document that is our basis for a religious belief partially untrustworthy shouldn't it stand to reason that the whole thing is? Why should we be skeptical of the myth of God creating the earth and life on it in seven days or the parts of it that make us feel icky (stoning disrespectful children to death) but we trust the parts we like, like the myth of this same God sending his son to die for us in order to wash away our sins and the part where he created this nice place for us to go exist after death where all of our dead loved ones are waiting for us?

ferris209 said:    

I will admit that I consider myself a Christian, therefor I have an ardent belief in God and that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins, but I am not the most schooled person in religion. Although I follow the teachings of the Bible, I cannot help but to feel that anything touched by man is flawed in some way. I know some may deem my questioning of the text blasphemy, but that is just the way I feel. I do not question God or Jesus, just what words man has purported to those of God's.

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:    

I will admit that I consider myself a Christian, therefor I have an ardent belief in God and that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins, but I am not the most schooled person in religion. Although I follow the teachings of the Bible, I cannot help but to feel that anything touched by man is flawed in some way. I know some may deem my questioning of the text blasphemy, but that is just the way I feel. I do not question God or Jesus, just what words man has purported to those of God's.

 

I take it you quoted that to agree with it?

I do not question God or Jesus, just what words man has purported to those of God's.

This is the one part of that way of thinking that makes me scratch my head. Everything we know about God and Jesus are written by the hands of man. You have this one source that teaches us about Jesus and his significance, the Bible, and it is a source both of you admit to deeming untrustworthy; but neither of you have any doubt in the Jesus story or about what this very book has taught you (or taught others who have in turn taught you) about the life, death, and significance of this man Jesus.

What then is the foundation of your faith, if the very and sole source of that which you have faith in is unreliable?

After I told you the story of being brutally beaten and possibly impregnated by an alien police officer, what if I were to tell you I have a very good friend named Jacob who lives in Alaska. Jacob sold a bunch of land filled with oil years ago and is very, very, very, very rich. We are talking billions of dollars. He also has no family or kids to share it with. So, Jacob told me that any friends of mine that I send his way he will give 1 million dollars to. All they have to do is fly to Alaska, I'll give Jacob your ticket information and he will send a driver to pick you up at the air port (this driver is yours to use for as long as you wish to stay in Alaska too, if you like), Jacob will meet you, shake your hand, and take you (and your family if you bring them) out to a really nice restaurant, after dinner he'll write you a check for 1 million, shake your hand again, and your driver will take you to your hotel (where you can stay as long as you like, Jacob will cover the bill). Pretty sweet deal, right? I swear it is true. Jacob and I are super tight. So, who's booking their tickets to Alaska right now?

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:    

I will admit that I consider myself a Christian, therefor I have an ardent belief in God and that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins, but I am not the most schooled person in religion. Although I follow the teachings of the Bible, I cannot help but to feel that anything touched by man is flawed in some way. I know some may deem my questioning of the text blasphemy, but that is just the way I feel. I do not question God or Jesus, just what words man has purported to those of God's.

 

I take it you quoted that to agree with it?

yes, more to the point, I wanted to see your response to it. 

CP3S said:

I do not question God or Jesus, just what words man has purported to those of God's.

This is the one part of that way of thinking that makes me scratch my head. Everything we know about God and Jesus are written by the hands of man. You have this one source that teaches us about Jesus and his significance, the Bible, and it is a source both of you admit to deeming untrustworthy; but neither of you have any doubt in the Jesus story or about what this very book has taught you (or taught others who have in turn taught you) about the life, death, and significance of this man Jesus.

What then is the foundation of your faith, if the very and sole source of that which you have faith in is unreliable?

You are correct in saying that logically if Genesis can't be trusted, the whole thing can't be.   But you are incorrectly applying logic to faith.   Faith is believing in things even if common sense would tell you not to.    I don't need solid evidence that Christ existed or that he was the Son of God,  I just have faith that he is exist and that he was the Son of God.  

Also we have scientific evidence that things didn't happen exactly the way they happened in Genesis.     Do we have any scientific evidence that Christ didn't exist and/or wasn't the Son of God, that He didn't die for our sins and rise three days later?   Can you prove all of that didn't happen?  No.  You could say there is no way that a virgin birth can happen and no way a man can rise from grave three days after he is murdered.     For normal humans, you'd be right.   But we are talking about someone believed to be the Son of God, we are talking about events that God supposedly had his hand in.    If God exists and had his hand in the events, it stands reason that virgin birth is possible.  It stands to reason that a man can rise from the grave three days after he is murdered.

Another thing to consider is that the book of Genesis was written thousands of years after the supposed events took place(assuming Moses wrote the book, as traditionally believed).   Moses wasn't around to see what happened back then.   The 4 Gospels were written within about 100 years of the events described in them.   Perhaps then the Gospels should be considered as more trust worthy depictions of their event, than should Genesis' depictions of its events?

CP3S said:

After I told you the story of being brutally beaten and possibly impregnated by an alien police officer, what if I were to tell you I have a very good friend named Jacob who lives in Alaska. Jacob sold a bunch of land filled with oil years ago and is very, very, very, very rich. We are talking billions of dollars. He also has no family or kids to share it with. So, Jacob told me that any friends of mine that I send his way he will give 1 million dollars to. All they have to do is fly to Alaska, I'll give Jacob your ticket information and he will send a driver to pick you up at the air port (this driver is yours to use for as long as you wish to stay in Alaska too, if you like), Jacob will meet you, shake your hand, and take you (and your family if you bring them) out to a really nice restaurant, after dinner he'll write you a check for 1 million, shake your hand again, and your driver will take you to your hotel (where you can stay as long as you like, Jacob will cover the bill). Pretty sweet deal, right? I swear it is true. Jacob and I are super tight. So, who's booking their tickets to Alaska right now?

If I were to logically look at both stories, I'd be very skeptical that this friend of yours would give me 1 million dollars.   However if I had faith that at least some of your story is true and used your first version of critic thinking you talked about in post 9556 of this thread, I might be booking a trip to Alaska right now. 

reposted from http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Obama-is-now-a-Republican/post/511011/#TopicPost511011

sexyloser said:

I can't see why conservatives are mad at him, as he basically became a Republican after he was elected. 

-Extended the Bush tax cuts. 
-Kept the Patriot Act. 
-Kept the Drug War and failed to legalized Marijuana. 
-Dragging his feet to create a Consumer Protection Agency with Elizabeth Warren at its head and failed to bring back the Glass–Steagall Act regulations. 
-Appointed people who were responsible for the financial crisis to his cabinet and the Fed. 
-Chose a stimulus that was 25% of what his economists said was needed and 28% of which was tax cuts. 
-Failed to close subsides for corporations that outsources jobs overseas or oil companies that are making record profits. 
-Cozy up to Wall Street and corporate interest. 
-Failed to create a public works program to create jobs. 
-Dragging his feet to close Gitmo (it's still open). 
-Dragging his feet to end DADT (it's still in effect). 
-Doesn't support gay marriage. 
-Abandoned promise for net neutrality. 
-Failed to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to show support for unions under attack in Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Jersey. 
-Failed to show support for Planned Parenthood that's under attack. 
-Praised the Bowles-Simpson plan to gut Social Security and Medicare. 
-Embraced his opponents who would never vote for him while abandoning his supporters. 
-Did healthcare reform similar to what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. 
-Escalated, just enough to anger the locals but not enough to bring in decisive results, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, without clear goals and an end game. 

The nation was ready for change, but Obama chose the status quo. We wanted a FDR but we got a Herbert Hoover instead. I wonder how can he sleep at night knowing that people cried in joy at his election and are still crying because they're jobless and penniless. To those saying the President can't do everything, I say he entered office with a super-majority in Congress and a huge popular mandate for change. To those saying he doesn't want to appear to be too partisan, I say ultimately Americans like bold, decisive leadership. Bush was as partisan as partisan can be and he won reelection. If Obama thinks his meek and overly cautious leadership is going over well with the American people, he's dead wrong. 

Warbler said:

If God exists and had his hand in the events, it stands reason that virgin birth is possible.  It stands to reason that a man can rise from the grave three days after he is murdered.

It also stands to reason that he'd be able to make a fully mature adult male out of dust, and a fully mature adult female out of the man's rib, and a fully mature garden full of fruit bearing trees and fully mature animal life as well. We say God can do anything, so it would stand to reason that those things are within his abilities. If he can make fruit trees old enough to bear fruit in a matter of days, then don't you suppose he could build whole mountain ranges and canyons in that amount of time that would show all signs of being possibly billions of years old? 

The 4 Gospels were written within about 100 years of the events described in them.   Perhaps then the Gospels should be considered as more trust worthy depictions of their event, than should Genesis' depictions of its events?

100 years is still a very long time. Just look at what all has happened in 100 years of our history. If you claimed, as many Christians do, that the Holy Spirit guided the gospel writers as they made their accounts of the life of Jesus, then I'd see things as considerably more sound. But then again, if God was willing to guide the hands of the Gospel writers to ensure the good news about Jesus was accurately passed on, why wouldn't he have guided Moses in his writing of the histories in Genesis? The Old Testament law was said to have been dictated to Moses by God, but in our last conversation about this that was one of the parts of the Bible you were most skeptical about.

 

If were to logically look at both stories, I'd be very skeptical that this friend of yours would give me 1 million dollars.   However if I had faith that at least some of your story is true and used your first version of critic thinking you talked about in post 9556 of this thread, I might be booking a trip to Alaska right now. 

My "first example" of critical thinking wasn't actually critical thinking, it was an example of someone talking themselves into believing something for the sake of believing it. In the case of my examples I don't think logic could ever be applied to either of my stories with the conclusion that anything I said could be trusted.

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

If God exists and had his hand in the events, it stands reason that virgin birth is possible.  It stands to reason that a man can rise from the grave three days after he is murdered.

It also stands to reason that he'd be able to make a fully mature adult male out of dust, and a fully mature adult female out of the man's rib, and a fully mature garden full of fruit bearing trees and fully mature animal life as well. We say God can do anything, so it would stand to reason that those things are within his abilities. If he can make fruit trees old enough to bear fruit in a matter of days, then don't you suppose he could build whole mountain ranges and canyons in that amount of time that would show all signs of being possibly billions of years old? 

you are correct, he could do all of those things.  It just seems weird to me that he would purposefully create things and include scientific evidence that indicates that things were created differently than how he created them.  It seems weird to me that he would create things and then make them seem older than they really are,  thus concealing how they were created.    If God created things the way Genesis says he did,  wouldn't he have seen to it that all the scientific evidence points to creation as described in Genesis?   Since he didn't, I conclude he must have created the world in a different manner.   Perhaps he did it via evolution.  Perhaps he is responsible for the big bang.   

CP3S said:

The 4 Gospels were written within about 100 years of the events described in them.   Perhaps then the Gospels should be considered as more trust worthy depictions of their event, than should Genesis' depictions of its events?

100 years is still a very long time.

 

Matthew is believed to have been written 80-90 AD

Mark: around 64 AD (thought to have been written by a companion of Peter the Disciple)

Luke: 59 or 60 AD

John:  about 90-100 AD

all within less than 100 years of the events.   One is thought to have been written by someone that knew one the disciples.      What would you think more accurate:  me writing the sorry pearl harbor after talking with someone who was actually there, or me writing the story of of William the Conqueror(the first Norman King of England)?

CP3S said:

Just look at what all has happened in 100 years of our history. If you claimed, as many Christians do, that the Holy Spirit guided the gospel writers as they made their accounts of the life of Jesus, then I'd see things as considerably more sound. But then again, if God was willing to guide the hands of the Gospel writers to ensure the good news about Jesus was accurately passed on, why wouldn't he have guided Moses in his writing of the histories in Genesis? The Old Testament law was said to have been dictated to Moses by God, but in our last conversation about this that was one of the parts of the Bible you were most skeptical about.

like I said, I am not certain that the entire Bible was inspired by God.  I do think some of it is.

CP3S said:

 

If were to logically look at both stories, I'd be very skeptical that this friend of yours would give me 1 million dollars.   However if I had faith that at least some of your story is true and used your first version of critic thinking you talked about in post 9556 of this thread, I might be booking a trip to Alaska right now. 

My "first example" of critical thinking wasn't actually critical thinking, it was an example of someone talking themselves into believing something for the sake of believing it. In the case of my examples I don't think logic could ever be applied to either of my stories with the conclusion that anything I said could be trusted.

perhaps not. 

Warbler said:

you are correct, he could do all of those things.  It just seems weird to me that he would purposefully create things and include scientific evidence that indicates that things were created differently than how he created them.  It seems weird to me that he would create things and then make them seem older than they really are,  thus concealing how they were created.    If God created things the way Genesis says he did,  wouldn't he have seen to it that all the scientific evidence points to creation as described in Genesis?   Since he didn't, I conclude he must have created the world in a different manner.   Perhaps he did it via evolution.  Perhaps he is responsible for the big bang.   

I have often heard Christians say that Adam would have been a site to see because he would not have had a belly button, since he never would have had been attached to an umbilical chord. That is an interesting thought. But for some reason I always imagined that had he existed he would have had one. I also always imagined that if you were to cut down a tree in the Garden of Eden you would have found rings in the trees. If an all powerful God exists, then we'd have to assume he wrote all the laws by which nature abides by. Would he have made his early creations exempt from these laws, or would he have just created them at a quickened pace, but still subject to all the signs of the laws he created them to thrive by? Would Adam have lacked a belly button simply because he never had a mother, or would God have created him to bear all the same signs of nature that his children would exhibit?

While we are on the subject of God making scientific evidence point to the creation as described in Genesis, one interesting thing about God (admitted by theists) is his consistent refusal to show evidence of his existence. Seriously, if all the evidence he is willing to give of this massive and extremely universally significant sacrifice of his son is an old book with questionable sources that even those who strongly believe in it are willing to admit is more or less mostly BS (with the exception of the parts they'd like to believe in), then why would he bother providing evidence for creation? Surely some first hand testimonies of the actual apostles who traveled with Jesus, possibly written while the events were taking place or immediately thereafter, would have been a more significant and convincing piece of evidence that he loves us so much he killed his son for us (in order to cleanse us of damning sins he programmed into us) than accounts written half a century or more after the fact.

Matthew is believed to have been written 80-90 AD

Mark: around 64 AD (thought to have been written by a companion of Peter the Disciple)

Luke: 59 or 60 AD

John:  about 90-100 AD

all within less than 100 years of the events.   One is thought to have been written by someone that knew one the disciples.      What would you think more accurate:  me writing the sorry pearl harbor after talking with someone who was actually there, or me writing the story of of William the Conqueror(the first Norman King of England)?

Just sayin', look at all the debate over Star Wars, a film that is only 30 years old. You still have people swearing to have seen scene in the film that were never there. You have people on the internet swearing to have seen the Biggs scene in the film back in 1977, or to have seen the sandstorm scene in Return of the Jedi. In modern times things like that are documented much better, we have old reels of film and editors who guarantee those things never left the cutting room floor, yet some people still insist they saw what they saw. What is an eye witness worth 50 years after the fact, especially if he has something to be gained from witnessing what he witnessed. Tons of people swear to have seen Bigfoot or the Lochness Monster, sensational stories of our time, and they will swear on their life they really saw it, but ultimately can provide no proof.

I'd hold both your account of William the Conqueror and your account of Pearl Harbor (based on the faulty memory of an eye witness) to be far less reliable than the account of someone who was actually there.

I just think if you look at it the way you do, you are putting yourself in a row boat full of holes you are perfectly willing to admit are there, but yet still willingly set out for the middle of the lake in it anyway. I'd be able to accept this reasoning with much more ease if you could explain why the holes in your boat are not going to allow you to sink. Even some theory about an invisible intangible divine epoxy that has sealed those holes and wont allow them to take in water would make much more sense to me than the idea of, "Well, yeah, my boat is full of holes. What of it? I have faith it is going to carry me to the middle of the lake without sinking." At that point I think it is just wishful thinking. 

This really isn't a very nice discussion and I shouldn't be putting your faith (or that of any one else who happens reads this) to question. You obviously have a very strong faith in your religion, I really should just respect that and keep my views to myself. It is just really hard for me to hear this sort of stuff without a "Whaaaa??" reaction. 

Ferris can you tell me more about this case?

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20110702_Inquirer_Editorial__Texas_should_obey_law.html

TV's Frink said:

CP3S said:

umbilical chord

A musical baby?

Haha! Oops. Nice catch.

ferris209 said:

What do you want to know? That article pretty well sums it up.

I guess what I want to know is why it would be so wrong to let this guy have legal assistance from his own country?

ferris209 said:

A foreign country is attempting to intervene in our State's legal system,

President W. Bush was from a foreign country? 

ferris209 said:          

We, as Peace Officers for the State of Texas, have no legal bindings to uphold any "treaties" that the Unites States has agreed to, the Supreme Court agrees with that.

hmmm,  I am not so sure that the ruling in this case means that Texas is exempt from treaties that the US agrees to.   If individual states were exempt from treaties the United States signs, it would surely hamper our ability to make agreements with other nations.  

ferris209 said:

That said, I know what you meant by the question. Nah, I don't think it would have been wrong to allow him access to his consulate, but should the fact he didn't get it destroy the case and save him from the punishment he deserves?

I don't think so.  But by law, he may have to be retried.  Can't say I'd be to eager to see that happen.    I prefer that he rot in jail for the rest of life.

ferris209 said:

I don't think so. To be fair, as a Police Officer, I can tell  you that the last thing on my mind when dealing with criminals is "hey, do you need to call your consulate?",

the bolded assumes you are always dealing with those that guilty.   I think "suspects"  would have been a more accurate term to use.  

btw, I don't think the Constitutional rights of the accused should be the last thing on your mind.     

ferris209 said:

the thing that matters to us is if they have legal council. He was still given access the council (free of charge BTW)

was the guy any good?  

ferris209 said:

and still was represented by court appointed legal council, which was what our Constitution guarantees.

well i just think in a death penalty case, you should give the guy every chance.   One chance to be to seek aid from his own country(as agreed to by the US government, btw). 

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

President W. Bush was from a foreign country? 

Nope, here is one of the many issues I disagree with President Bush on. What I'm saying is that the U.N., Mexico, and even President Obama are trying to interfere in our court system.

your court system?   Texas is still part of the USA, is it not?   Bush was and Obama is President of the USA, seems like  that ought to give them some lead way here.   Your court system is a part of the overall court system of the USA.    

ferris209 said:

The guy was legally convicted in our State for a crime he committed in our State against a person who was in our State, justice should be served and he should be put to death. Who cares what Mexico, the U.N., or Presidents Obama or Bush thinks.

well what about this?  what if an American gets arrested in a foreign country for a crime he/she did not commit and that country denies the American the right to seek council from the USA.  The reason given by the foreign government: "well since the USA doesn't follow the rules agreed to, neither will we"   Now, suppose that American is convicted and sentenced to death?   

imho, by not abiding by a treaty that the our government made,  Texas has turned the USA (in the eyes of the rest of the world) into welshers.  nice job.

ferris209 said:

The point needs to be made that you cannot come to Texas, rape and murder, and then hide behind your nationality and country even though you fled that country from which you now seek help from.

I don't think you ought to be able to do that anywhere.   I don't think anyone wants this guy to be able to hide behind their nationality,  people just think that the guy ought to be to seek council from his native country.  He should of course still be tried and if found guilty, punished.

ferris209 said:

Is it lost on everyone he was an ILLEGAL who killed a person in our country?!?!

didn't know that.   He is still entitled to a fair trial.   However without knowing the specifics of the treaty,   I can't say if this fact would effect his rights under the treaty or not. 

ferris209 said:

I do not know if the victim was illegal or legal, but that does not matter. Why is the victim forgotten? Her name was ADRIA SAUCEDA! She was someone's daughter, someone's sister; she had a future which most likely included a husband, children, etc. All that was robbed from her one drunken night when this scumbag took her life.

you are right, the victim should not be forgotten about.    

ferris209 said:

This is what I hate about the whole deal, the victim is always forgotten and brushed aside to protect the person who killed her.

I know it seems that way.    Thing is, it is Leal whose life is now in jeopardy.  It is he whom we are considering punishing.    So yeah, we are going to be more concerned with his rights.  That is as it should be in a civilized nation.   Its difference between our court system, and people like Leal.   Don't you think it is right that we give a person every chance before we kill them?

I have no desire to protect the person that killed her.   I  just want to protect the rights of anyone accused of killing her.  Even if convicted, one still has rights.   May I remind you of the number of people whom were convicted, put on death row, and found to be innocent later on?      

ferris209 said:

Allow us to look at what this scumbag did.

The tragic final hours of sixteen-year-old Adrea Sauceda's life started at an outdoor party in San Antonio, Texas. A witness observed Adria, apparently intoxicated and partially undressed, in the middle of a circle of men who were taking turns "on top of her." Another witness testified that an unidentified male invited him to have intercourse with Adria. The same witness testified that he later observed another man carrying a disoriented Adria to a truck, where he "had his way with her." Twenty-three-year-old Humberto Leal was also at the party. At some point the intoxicated but conscious victim was placed in Leal's car. Leal and Adria left together in Leal's car. About thirty minutes later, Leal's brother arrived at the party in a car which came to a screeching halt. Leal's brother was very excited or hysterical. Leal's brother started yelling to the people left at the party, "What the hell happened!" Leal's brother was yelling that Leal came home with blood on him saying he had killed a girl. Two of the trial witnesses were present when Leal's brother made these statements. Shortly thereafter Leal's brother left in a rush. Several of the party members went looking for Adria in the same area where the party was. They found her nude body lying face-up on a dirt road. They noticed Adria's head had been bashed in and it was bleeding. Her head was flinching or jerking. These party members called the police. When the police arrived, they saw the nude victim lying on her back. There was a 30 to 40 pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of Adria's skull lying partially on Adria's left arm. Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near Adria's right thigh. There was a gaping hole from the corner of Adria's right eye extending to the center of her head from which blood was oozing. Adria's head was splattered with blood. There was a bloody and broken stick approximately 14 to 16 inches long with a screw at the end of it protruding from Adria's vagina. Another 4 to 5 inch piece of the stick was lying to the left side of Adria's skull. The police made a videotape of the crime scene portions of which were admitted into evidence. Later that day, the police questioned Leal. Leal gave two voluntary statements. In Leal's first statement he said he was with Adria in his car when she began hitting him and the steering wheel causing him to hit a curb. Leal attempted to calm her down but Adria leaped from Leal's car and ran away. Leal claimed he sat in his car and waited about ten or fifteen minutes to see if Adria would return and when she did not he went home. After giving this statement, Leal was informed that his brother had also given a statement. Leal then gave another statement. In this statement, Leal claimed he followed Adria when she got out of his car and ran away. Leal claimed Adria attacked him. Leal pushed her and she fell to the ground. When she did not get up Leal attempted to wake her but could not. He then looked at her nose and saw bubbles. Leal stated he got scared, went home, prayed on the side of his mom's bed and told family members what had happened, claiming it was just an accident. After giving this statement an officer gave Leal a ride home. The police searched Leal's house. The police seized a blouse which contained several blood stains, hair and fibers. This blouse was later identified as belonging to Adria. The police also seized Leal's clothing from the night before. Leal was arrested later that afternoon at his home. Leal's car was also impounded. The police conducted Luminol tests of the passenger door to determine whether any blood was evident. Blood stains were discovered on the passenger door and seat. Detectives testified that the blood stains were streaked in a downward motion, indicating that the blood had been wiped off. There was insufficient residue to conduct a blood typing of the stains on the vehicle. Other DNA evidence was found on the underwear Leal was wearing that night. That evidence consisted of blood as well as bodily fluid. The DNA test did not preclude Adria's blood type from the evidence tested. Dr. DiMaio, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified about Adria's injuries and cause of death. DiMaio testified that even though Adria was intoxicated when she received her injuries, she would have been aware of what was happening to her. In addition to Adria's massive head injuries, DiMaio testified about injuries Adria received to her chest and shoulder which were consistent with having been inflicted by the stick found in Adria's vagina. DiMaio also testified about the defensive wounds Adria received to her hands trying to protect herself from some object. DiMaio also testified Adria was alive when the stick was placed in her vagina. Adria's neck also contained injuries consistent with manual strangulation. DiMaio testified Adria received some of her injuries while standing up. Adria received her head injuries while lying flat. The injuries to Adria's head were due to blows from the front. These injuries were inconsistent with a fall. Adria's head injuries were consistent with Adria lying on the ground with somebody standing over her striking her. DiMaio testified the large rock could have delivered the injuries to Adria's head. Based on the injuries to Adria's head, DiMaio testified Adria would had to have been struck with the rock two or three times. DiMaio testified Adria died from blunt force trauma injuries to the head. DiMaio could not say for certain that the rock caused the injuries. He testified Adria was beaten about the face with a blunt object or more than one object which could have been the rock or something else. On cross-examination, DiMaio testified that one blow from the rock could have caused Adria's death. DiMaio also testified about bite marks he found on Adria's left cheek, the right side of her neck and the left side of her chest. Another witness compared the bite marks on Adria's chest and neck with dental impressions of Leal's teeth. They matched. The State's indictment charged that Leal killed Sauceda while in the course of and attempting either to kidnap her or to commit aggravated sexual assault. Leal was convicted and, after a separate punishment phase, sentenced to death. 

horrible.  very sad.    It certainly looks like he's guilty.

ferris209 said:

How much more does one need before deciding this human waste pile should not be allowed to steal my oxygen any longer?   

just due process, thats all.

btw, its seems like you want revenge.  What we should be after, is justice.

ferris209 said:

 

Warbler said:

hmmm,  I am not so sure that the ruling in this case means that Texas is exempt from treaties that the US agrees to.   If individual states were exempt from treaties the United States signs, it would surely hamper our ability to make agreements with other nations.  

Here is the Case law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

Specfically, this:

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice. 

 

The majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law. A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing."   None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.  

So, as you can see, none of these treaties are legally binding on local law enforcement unless enacted by Congress. So, we do not have to abide by them unless legislation is specifically written ordering me to do so.

yeah,  technically you right.   I am not so sure other countries will agree.   I fear we will be seen as welshers.