I'll let Forbes do my talking. You can call bull shit on them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...enalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#52a09753664b
read it. Nice story. And i get it, but its still gov. Bs. It even says so. Not bs. But yeah... no need for different types of trials. Trials should be uniform and not be dependant upon the degree of the crime dictating the depth of investigation. If you are guilty are guilty. The end. So the costs are only because of a different type of trial and prosecutional procedure that im saying can be changed/fixed. It only costs more because we choose to have it cost more. So like i said. Beauratical bs.
Wait until you're falsely accused of murder and go on trial for your life. You're gonna want to make sure that you have all the tools you need to prove your innocence. There have been a lot of people falsely put to death because of trial errors or omissions. There have also been a fair amount of lives saved because of successful appeals. Then there's the issue of who determines which cases are truly cut and dried. I guess we could nominate you. Do you have a law degree and have you ever successfully defended an accused murderer?
Wellllll if you must know.... i was the defense attorney in a death penalty mock trial in high school and my defendant was acquitted in one week. (All the time we were given in that class, lol) So that should account for something right? Seriously though. There is never anything foolproof and matter which way it is, there will still be victims and ones aho slide through the cracks, but as long as all cases are examined fully, with unbiased minds, the verdict is the verdict. When it comes to people like this, my opinion is we are all better off without them. Even if it does cost more. Again. Im very select. But believe there are people on this earth who just Want to watch it burn. i respect your opinion.
So, while it's a really pathetic person who did this...weren't all 3 of them related? Which means, if they wanted to continue the species (or whatever the correct term is, which Im blanking on)...wouldn't it be incestuous anyways?
I thought the same thing Chris. Mentioned it to my mom “why not hunt the people who hunt these beautiful animals” her response “I don’t like the idea of people hunting people”. I agree with her statement - that’s opening up a Pandora’s box that is best left closed. But I’m not sure there’s much room to argue that what they did is NOT OKAY. How people think they are entitled to kill these beautiful creatures when the rest of the world wants to admire them; it’s beyond me. At the end of the day we are all responsible for ourselves, I’m just glad that the people in my life stay grounded and don’t feel like they are entitled to do stupid stuff like that.
Giraffes are neither rare nor endangered. The article clearly states the giraffes simply have Leucism. Leucism Leucism is a condition in which there is partial loss of pigmentation in an animal—which causes white, pale, or patchy coloration of the skin, hair, feathers, scales or cuticle, but not the eyes. It is occasionally spelled leukism. Unlike albinism, it can cause a reduction in multiple types of pigment, not just melanin.
Oh high school, why didn't you say so in the first place. We could have avoided all this back and forth.
