Doucet was being brought to baton rouge TO STAND TRIAL! Duuuuh! Oh, wait! Some self-appointed executioner killed him in public, endangering the lives of others, by the way. You should read the definition of "obtuse", too.
Where was he coming from amigo? Shouldn't he have already been in Baton Rouge? Huh, eh? What you got to say about that smartass? He was in an airport on a flight from California? Oh could it be because police in California found him in a freaking motel with the Plauche boy? Hmm now just why in the hell would that boy be so far from home with his karate instructor? Looking for Mr. Myagi perhaps? No I think not. Only a block head would say something as ridiculous as "we needed a trial to see if he molested the boy". That shit went down. Plauche didn't endanger the lives of anyone. He put the gun barrel in Doucet's ear, pulled the trigger then put his hands behind his back. ob·tuse əbˈt(y)o͞os,äb-/ adjective 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. your point? Besides the one on the top of your head
I say, who the hell cares. It is entirely irrelevant. The suspect was in custody. Only a complete fucking dumbass thinks that an accusation is enough to murder someone without trial. He shot from three feet away and almost hit the camera man who was in the direct line of fire. You think disagreeing with your unsupportable notions means I'm slow? Try me. You may be surprised, Hoss.
Not really. Justice is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at justice as "fair", which IS one of its definitions, it can become relative. The only thing fair, is someone took the lives of my kids, would be for them to lose theirs.
Not able to break this down on my phone so all at once. It speaks to his guilt. Boy + doucet+ California+pedophile=guilty Again, I'm not saying it justifies murder BUT this is a bit stronger than an accusation. See above. He made a well aimed shot. Looked closer than 3 feet on TV Ok difficult. I forget how blind you can be at times.
Drunk driving is a criminal offense. First offense, you lose your license, pay a stiff fine and your insurance goes way up. Kill or injure somebody and even if its your first offense you are in deep shit. You can end up in prison. Along with murderers, rapists and child molesters. But there is a level of forgiveness accorded to people who get a DWI. We all have had friends who have gotten charged with drunk driving. Every day there is a list of drunk driving arrests in the paper from 4 or 5 to 35 or 40. If you found out that a friend was a killer, a rapist or a child molester you would stop being friends with that person. But unless there are other circumstances drunk drivers don't lose all their friends. You might be pissed if its your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend. Stupid bitch lost her license and now I have to give her a ride to and from work every day. But you do it. Its easy to hear about somebody you don't know and call them a dangerous criminal. For drunk driving even if its only a casual friend you don't tend to condemn them and never want to see them again.
In the United States of America you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. None of this is proof, it is allegation. If there was plenty of proof, Doucet would would have gotten life without parole. I don't defend Doucet. I'm defending the rule of law. I'm defending the right to a trial. We can't have every self-appointed guardian of justice going around killing people. Trials are important for all parties and for the public. You and tiga both know this but insist upon defending Plauche. You damn Canadian-Americans are all alike. Plauche himself plead guilty, you know. Guilty and sentenced to time in prison. Then the pansy judge suspended the sentence. We have very different ideas about who is being blind.
