The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015
1,745 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1400 of 1745 Newer› Newest»Wow. Such an evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comment.
whereisubes?
Sidney,
Merry Christmas to you!
The same for Walt, Abe, and a Lawyer. I even wish Kenhyderal a merry Christmas.
evil duke troll gang christmas celebration prancing merrily on Ms. Mangum's sorrows ... copy pasting edited plagerizing to troll yourself and others some more ... ... ... and on and on it goes ... ... ...
And Merry Christmas to the cry-bully who keeps us amused!
seriously g... you are an evil duke troll with projection issues (as well as other serious issues)
don't troll me again
thanks
blah
and fy evil duke troll it g...
blah
Note: feel free to plagerize and repeat the above after every one of your posts ... just for amusement and all ... g...
hey evil duke troll it g... trolling along as usual
isn't there something else you could be doing other than going insane on this blog This weekend Too?
Note: last posts courtesy of g... regurgitated copied posts so that it has something to troll and go insane about this weekend
blah
troll on evil duke troll it g...
troll on ... go insane ... have fun
egad
sheesh louise and heloise
and
blah
and your a bs evil duke troll who harrassess, trolls, slanders, commits hate crimes, pretends to be a retired doc, duke dad, and various other characters at whim, treats people like slaves, and commits abusive crazy making tactics by baiting and then blaming the persons you troll for defending themselves or others from your constant duke centered bullying, trolling, and hate crime commissions directed at anyone who does not conform to your bs evil ways and beliefs
blah ...
blah ...
blah ...
tinfoil, kilgo, ceybullyu, harr the hypocritical fabricator, kenny hissy fit, no matter who is posting they have absolutely no idea against whom they are raieling.
I love to raiel
blah ...
blah ...
blah ...
Enough of your raieling.
kenny is the biggest raieler on this blog
no g raieled more than kennny yesterday
Hey, Everybody! Listen up.
Have a wonderful Christmas!
As you were.
Dr. Harr, please stop raieling.
Dr. Harr:
Habari gani?
Anonymous said: "kenny is the biggest raieler on this blog''................ I raent as well.
I pray for one whose Christmas has been denied by false imprisonment and involuntary separation from her Children
I also pray for Crystal -- that she may see the error of her ways, and eventually get out of prison a better woman, and give good example to her children.
kenhyderal said...
"I pray for one whose Christmas has been denied by false imprisonment and involuntary separation from her Children"
That does not mean crystal who was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murdering another human being.
That kenny hissy fit refers to her as been wrongfully imprisoned has no legal weight.
The poster who calls himself kenhyderal is a hypocrite and a fraud.
Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996
Kenyderal is a user name for Kenneth D. Edwards. The Anonymous poster who signs his name Malek Williams and purports to be a classmate of Crystal is a liar and a coward. He is one of many frauds who, undercover of anonymity, create cruel mischief against Crystal. The day will come when he and his ilk will be exposed and they will pay dearly for their sadistic treatment of her. Peace on earth, good will to men but where there is no justice peace is unlikely
kenhyderal said...
"[Malek Wllias]is one of many frauds who, undercover of anonymity, create cruel mischief against Crystal."
With all the repeated assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006, and all the repeated assertions in spite of proof to the contrary that Crystal was wrongfully convicted of murdering Reginald Daye, the only perpetrators of fraud on this blog are you and your mentor harr the hypocritical fabricator.
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..
kenny hissy fit re posting one of his comments anonymously? Could be.
my evil duke troll shadow is BACK!
hey
repeat this: blah
....
blah
...
blah
,,,
g ... i've already told you to stop copy and pasting posts that aren't even yours and then sitting there and trolling what you just posted.
seriously
get over yourself
troll doesn't even describe what you do any more g ... since you are seriously evil
DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN
thanks
g... your posts as usual hold no meaning at all except that you are an evil duke troll from kc's blog.
Why don't ya'll (you especially) stop trolling Kenny and copying and pasting his or anyone else's past posts to start new trolls and arguments against your own trolled cut and paste posts, and then screaming quit whining or quit trolling when a reply is given in defense or asking you to stop or whatever? Seriously.
blah
Cry bully cry!
fy evil duke troll it g...
blah
Note: feel free to plagerize and repeat the above after every one of your posts ... just for amusement and all ... g...
fy evil duke troll it g... and hate-crime blog monger
blah
Probably kenny hissy fit decompensating and posting anonymously again. Harr the hypocritical fabricator is probaly hiding under his bed.
Cry bully cry,
You make Ken Edwards sigh.
He's old enough to know better.
So cry bully cry!
fy evil duke troll it g...
blah
Note: feel free to plagerize and repeat the above after every one of your posts ... just for amusement and all ... g...
Why do you think your agendas give you the right to troll others who do not hold your agenda nor outlook on thinks guiwon? The evil duke troll gang you belong to? Is that it?
Cry bully cry,
You make Ken Edwards sigh.
He's old enough to know better.
So cry bully cry!
fy evil duke troll it g... and hate-crime blog monger
blah
Cry bully cry,
You make Ken Edwards sigh.
He's old enough to know better.
So cry bully cry!
guiowen said...
Sidney,
Merry Christmas to you!
The same for Walt, Abe, and a Lawyer. I even wish Kenhyderal a merry Christmas.
gui, mon ami, thanks for the Christmas greeting. I hope that you have a great year in 2016.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr:
Habari gani?
Waaa?
Sorry, but does not compute. Try English.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT GREETING!
I hope that 2016 brings good health and much happiness to all commenters, viewers, and visitors to this blog site.
However, I am sorry that I will unfortunately mar the year for Walt, Abe, gui, Lance the Intern, A Lawyer, and a few others when I succeed in having Crystal Mangum exonerated and freed in 2016... it is collateral damage. 2016 will be the year that justice prevails in the Mangum saga! You can take that to the bank and cash it.
As you were.
Walt said...
A lawyer wrote: "Dr. Harr,
I don't agree with much of what you say, but I appreciate your maintaining this forum for debate and for allowing those who disagree with you to post here. Have a happy holiday and a healthy New Year!
And the same to Walt, Abe and the other posters here who keep things civil. (As for the racist jerk who posts anonymously, I hope Santa brings you a lump of coal. Black coal.)"
I wish to associate myself with A lawyer's comments. Well said and Merry Christmas.
Walt
Hey, Walt. Thanks for the holiday wishes. I hope that you had a great Christmas. Looking forward to another year of your thoughtful (but faulty) comments.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr,
I don't agree with much of what you say, but I appreciate your maintaining this forum for debate and for allowing those who disagree with you to post here. Have a happy holiday and a healthy New Year!
And the same to Walt, Abe and the other posters here who keep things civil. (As for the racist jerk who posts anonymously, I hope Santa brings you a lump of coal. Black coal.)
Hey, A Lawyer.
Thanks for the holiday wishes and I hope that you had a great Christmas. Sorry I'm going to have to put a dent in your 2016 when I free Crystal and see that she's exonerated.
As far as this blog site goes, I thank you, along with Walt, gui, and others who contribute comments. That's what makes the site thought-provoking and interesting. Can you imagine what this blog site would be like if only kenhyderal and I commented? B-O-R-I-N-G. A debate is always more interesting when two competing sides are involved.
Looking for a lively debate in 2016... that is, until Mangum is exonerated and freed. But then we can hash out the Shan Carter case until he is freed.
Have a great 2016.
Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...
Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..
kenhyderal supporter,
You are absolutely correct. The media-types who have trashed and vilified Crystal, in particular, have never met her and do not know her. I have known her and worked with her for nearly five years... have been visiting her weekly now for nearly a year and have seen her with her children in the past. She is a fantastic young woman, loving mother, and extremely strong person... her strength with a religious foundation.
Dr. Harr,
You have stated for many years that you will get Ms. Mangum free from her wrongful incarceration. You have not stated that you will get Mr. Daye's family compensated for Duke's malpractice. You have not stopped g... and others from cyberbullying consistently on your blog even though it has been pointed out to you that their cyberbullying is done as sole intent to make this blog something that no-one will take seriously, and that cyberbullying is a crime and has been shown to cause mental illness and suicide, with Ms. Mangum and her family the prime targets of much of the hate crime cyberbullying on your blog.
How do you plan to see Ms. Mangum's case be ended this year? Is this just another self-serving (there are words that might describe the intent of self-serving, but for now that will have to do) statement of yours so that you can continue to enjoy the cyberbullying committed on your blog from your friend g... and the evil duke troll gang you host on your blog without stop? You call it a lively debate, others call it a hate-crime blog, and have asked you consistently to take responsibility for curtailing the cyberbullying by g... and the evil duke troll gang on your blog. What are your thoughts on this matter, and do you take cyberbullying and the harm it can do seriously on your blog?
Dr. Harr,
In addition, you say you limit your cyberbullying monitoring on this blog to hate-crimes against blacks, but civil rights extends to women, other races, the disabled (which includes those mentally ill and their families), religions, etc. Why do you choose to only defend civil rights for blacks, and not for other protected persons by civil rights laws, etc.?
Nifong Supporter said...
"However, I am sorry that I will unfortunately mar the year for Walt, Abe, gui, Lance the Intern, A Lawyer, and a few others when I succeed in having Crystal Mangum exonerated and freed in 2016... it is collateral damage."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
The Statute of Limitations has long since passed on a malpractice suit by Daye's family, so unless they already filed suit and/or received compensation (something they may have, no one has asked them) - it's too late.
But, even if Duke committed Malpractice, as has been repeatedly explained, that doesn't change the case. This case was always about self-defense, despite what the abuser (Harr) wanted it to be about. Unless Duke intentionally harmed Daye (and malpractice isn't intentional, by definition), Crystal's liability isn't cut off (this has repeatedly been explained).
It's too bad Sid has already announced another year of lying to Crystal, and continuing his emotional abuse and social isolation of her.
Nifong Supporter said...
"kenhyderal supporter,
You are absolutely correct. The media-types who have trashed and vilified Crystal, in particular, have never met her and do not know her."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again.
December 27, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Mr. Daye's family has plenty of reason to sue Duke for malpractice in this case still, especially since the malpractice has been covered up and not adjudicated by the justice system, so there is no way as of yet to determine if it was intentional or not. What is clear is that the cover-up, lies, inadequate legal representation, misrepresentations, and overall in-justice in the entire case is on-going and is still to be put before a fair and equal and unbiased justice system to uphold the rights of either Mr. Daye or Ms. Mangum by Duke and state justice system.
Dr. Harr,
Habari gani?
Kujichagulia
Nifong Supporter said: "kenhyderal supporter, You are absolutely correct"......... Dear Dr. Harr, just for the record the post by the so-called "kenhyderal supporter" are not his own words but are, in fact, a plagiarism of one of my posts. My guess is that he is the same anonymous poster who plagiarizes me frequently and signs himself as Malek Williams. As the blog host you can determine the internet address of those who sign in to post on your blog. Personally I take offence at people plagiarizing me.
Anonymous @ December 27, 2015 at 5:35 AM said...
"December 27, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Mr. Daye's family has plenty of reason to sue Duke for malpractice in this case still, especially since the malpractice has been covered up and not adjudicated by the justice system, so there is no way as of yet to determine if it was intentional or not."
harr the hypocritical fabricator is the only individual in this case who has alleged malpractice. I say again, harr is the minimally trained, minimally experienced graduate of a medical school who was never accepted into residency traoning, who never achieved medical specialty bord certification, whose post medical school career was devoted to filing and losing non meritorious frivolous lawsuits. harr the hypocriticl fabricator is singularly unqualified to determine whether or not malractice occurred.
In any event, with all the trial lawyers advertising on TV, We will fight for all the money you deserve. They handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning in just about all cases they keep 1/3 of whatever the plaintiff recovers for themselves. If a case has not chance of resulting in recovery, they will not handle it. What most likely happened is that some firm of trial lawyers looked at the death of Reginald Daye and determined that no malpractice happened.
Finally, as I hae said before, even if there had been malpractice, it would not have relieved crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. She put forward an affirmative defense, self defense. It became her burden to prove she had acted in self defense and she failed to do it.
kenhyderal said...
"Personally I take offence at people plagiarizing me."
You should be flattered that people copy and paste your posts, considering the abysmally low quality of your posts.
Considering the causes for which you advocate, the lie that crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006, that crystal stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense, you have no right to take offense at anything.
Kenny whines: Personally I take offence at people plagiarizing me.
Personally, I take offense at your refusal to engage in an honest discussion, insisting instead on master debating.
ujima
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
NEW POSTING!!
I just uploaded a new correspondence that I sent on November 12, 2015 to Benjamin L. Crump, the president of the National Bar Association, and a well-known civil rights attorney.
As you were.
kenhyderal said...
Nifong Supporter said: "kenhyderal supporter, You are absolutely correct"......... Dear Dr. Harr, just for the record the post by the so-called "kenhyderal supporter" are not his own words but are, in fact, a plagiarism of one of my posts. My guess is that he is the same anonymous poster who plagiarizes me frequently and signs himself as Malek Williams. As the blog host you can determine the internet address of those who sign in to post on your blog. Personally I take offence at people plagiarizing me.
Hey, kenhyderal.
I will try to remember that "kenhyderal supporter" is nothing more than a plagiarizer and will refrain from addressing his comments.
I did not realize that I could determine the internet address of those who comment on my post, and I will have my tech savvy friends tell me how to do that. I do not take your feelings lightly, but as the saying goes "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." And, I welcome the repetition of your sage and sound comments by those who may not be sagacious enough to come up with original comments of their own.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
December 27, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Mr. Daye's family has plenty of reason to sue Duke for malpractice in this case still, especially since the malpractice has been covered up and not adjudicated by the justice system, so there is no way as of yet to determine if it was intentional or not. What is clear is that the cover-up, lies, inadequate legal representation, misrepresentations, and overall in-justice in the entire case is on-going and is still to be put before a fair and equal and unbiased justice system to uphold the rights of either Mr. Daye or Ms. Mangum by Duke and state justice system.
You are absolutely correct. As the terminology goes, a wrongful death lawsuit by the Daye family against Duke University Hospital would be a "slam-dunk." Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was responsible for Daye's brain-death... and Duke University Hospital electively removed him from life-support. (Note: I just learned of a recent case in Texas wherein the medical staff determined a comatose patient to be brain-dead due to a stroke and were in the process of beginning to wean him from life-support when the father intervened with a firearm. Well, as it turned out, the stroke patient came out of his coma shortly thereafter and began to physically improve. I believe that he had been on life-support for at least a month. The patient was George Pickering III, and his father George Pickering II.)
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
In addition, you say you limit your cyberbullying monitoring on this blog to hate-crimes against blacks, but civil rights extends to women, other races, the disabled (which includes those mentally ill and their families), religions, etc. Why do you choose to only defend civil rights for blacks, and not for other protected persons by civil rights laws, etc.?
Actually, I am pretty liberal in what I allow to be placed on my blog site. There is a lot of hate-speech, for sure. But then again, there are a lot of haters out there in the real world. Some even run for president. Where I absolutely draw the line is with the n-word. That is totally prohibited. Cruel and inflammatory comments gratuitously and repeatedly made are considered for deletion... and most of such comments are usually aimed towards African Americans. In other words, I am pretty lenient when it comes to hate-speech towards any group (race, religious, sexual orientation or preference, gender, disability, etc.), but it seems to me that the most damning comments worthy of deletion are against black people.
Let me know if further edification is required.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Statute of Limitations has long since passed on a malpractice suit by Daye's family, so unless they already filed suit and/or received compensation (something they may have, no one has asked them) - it's too late.
But, even if Duke committed Malpractice, as has been repeatedly explained, that doesn't change the case. This case was always about self-defense, despite what the abuser (Harr) wanted it to be about. Unless Duke intentionally harmed Daye (and malpractice isn't intentional, by definition), Crystal's liability isn't cut off (this has repeatedly been explained).
It's too bad Sid has already announced another year of lying to Crystal, and continuing his emotional abuse and social isolation of her.
If Duke University Hospital did compensate the Daye family for the wrongful death of Reginald, don't expect to learn about it because I am certain they did so under a very strict confidentiality clause.
Unfortunately, Mangum's turncoat attorneys made the case about self-defense. The case should have been about lack of probable cause as no murder was committed in Daye's death. The manner of death was accidental and not homicidal. If homicidal, then the death weapon would have to be the endotracheal tube and not the steak knife... after all, the steak knife did not cause Daye's brain-dead comatose state.
Until you, or anyone, can explain to me logically how the stab wound to Daye's chest caused him to become brain-dead, then I will continue to assert that Crystal Mangum had absolutely no liability for Daye's demise.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
You have stated for many years that you will get Ms. Mangum free from her wrongful incarceration. You have not stated that you will get Mr. Daye's family compensated for Duke's malpractice. You have not stopped g... and others from cyberbullying consistently on your blog even though it has been pointed out to you that their cyberbullying is done as sole intent to make this blog something that no-one will take seriously, and that cyberbullying is a crime and has been shown to cause mental illness and suicide, with Ms. Mangum and her family the prime targets of much of the hate crime cyberbullying on your blog.
How do you plan to see Ms. Mangum's case be ended this year? Is this just another self-serving (there are words that might describe the intent of self-serving, but for now that will have to do) statement of yours so that you can continue to enjoy the cyberbullying committed on your blog from your friend g... and the evil duke troll gang you host on your blog without stop? You call it a lively debate, others call it a hate-crime blog, and have asked you consistently to take responsibility for curtailing the cyberbullying by g... and the evil duke troll gang on your blog. What are your thoughts on this matter, and do you take cyberbullying and the harm it can do seriously on your blog?
Why should I fight to get money for Daye's family from Duke's malpractice? I'm not an attorney, and they have not retained me, as an advocate, to do so.
I will get Mangum freed and exonerated, but I had thought it would be much sooner. I failed to comprehend the depth of baseless hatred and immense vindictive appetite of those in power who have maintained the injustice.
As far as cyberbullying goes, I have little time to address to policing this site -- my attention is focused on obtaining justice for Mangum. However, because most of the bloggers are anonymous or use stage names and not their true identities, I fail to see how they would be victims of any criminality. That's not to say that they aren't, but rather I fail to understand why.
If you sent it Nov. 12 and still haven't gotten a response, you probably won't ...
I haven't read it, but I bet you scream about Felony Murder in it, proving you don't know what you are talking about and refuse to learn, discrediting everything you might have a point on.
If you want to help Crystal - at least learn and adjust - don't keep beating a dead horse - it costs you credibility. If you'd adjust and learn, you'd be much more credible.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I just uploaded a new correspondence that I sent on November 12, 2015 to Benjamin L. Crump, the president of the National Bar Association, and a well-known civil rights attorney."
Said posting is another attempt at fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator. He again refers to crystal, the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke rape hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case as no rape had occurred), as the "Victim/Accuser".
harr the hypocritical fabricator is again chanelling josef Goebbels.
harr the hyhpocritical fabricator said to kenny hissy fit:
" I welcome the repetition of your sage and sound comments by those who may not be aagacious enough to come up with original comments of their own."
And again harr fabricates. kenny hissy fit has never posted any "sage and sound comments" on this blog.
Nifong Supporter said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
December 27, 2015 at 5:08 AM
"You are absolutely correct. As the terminology goes, a wrongful death lawsuit by the Daye family against Duke University Hospital would be a 'slam-dunk.'"
Again harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved specialty board certification and who spent his post medical career filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, fabricates.
If a wrongful death suit against Duke by the Daye family was a slam dunk, dozens of contingency fee hungry trial lawyers would have been lining up on their front door step to represent them. That the Daye family did not file a wrongful death suit indicates that, if they did consult attorneys, those attorneys all told them they did not have a case.
It is a matter of elementary deduction, something of which harr the hypocritical fabricator is incapable.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, I am pretty liberal in what I allow to be placed on my blog site. There is a lot of hate-speech, for sure. But then again, there are a lot of haters out there in the real world."
harr the hypocritical fabricator shows lack of insight. He himself, in his attitude towards the innocent men crystal falsely accused of raping her shows he is one of the haters out there in the world. Whether or not he admits it, his attitude towards those innocent men shows he hates them.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Unfortunately, Mangum's turncoat attorneys made the case about self-defense."
crystal's attorneys did not prove self defense.harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
"The case should have been about lack of probable cause as no murder was committed in Daye's death."
harr the hypocritical fabricator with no legal knowledge and no legal experience fabricates again. It was murder.
"The manner of death was accidental and not homicidal. If homicidal, then the death weapon would have to be the endotracheal tube and not the steak knife... after all, the steak knife did not cause Daye's brain-dead comatose state."
harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained minimally experienced medical school graduate fabricates again. Reginald daye's death was a complication of a workup for an intra abdominal infection. That harr is incapable of understanding that does not establish that Reginald Daye's death was not due to that.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Until you, or anyone, can explain to me logically how the stab wound to Daye's chest caused him to become brain-dead, then I will continue to assert that Crystal Mangum had absolutely no liability for Daye's demise."
It has been explained to you. That you, the minimally trained minimally experienced medical school graduate who never was accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification are willfully incapable of understanding it does not render it invalid.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Why should I fight to get money for Daye's family from Duke's malpractice? I'm not an attorney, and they have not retained me, as an advocate, to do so."
Reginald Daye's family shows more intelligence, more awareness of your inadequacies than you do.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I will get Mangum freed and exonerated, but I had thought it would be much sooner. I failed to comprehend the depth of baseless hatred and immense vindictive appetite of those in power who have maintained the injustice."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
Nifong Supporter said...
"As far as cyberbullying goes, I have little time to address to policing this site -- my attention is focused on obtaining justice for Mangum."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. He is trying to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
Daye's family may well have reached a settlement with Duke - it's unknown, and not relevant.
Sid dismisses the self-defense defense (even though that was the only way to get a NG in this case). Sid has an axe to grind against Duke, because he wants a multi-million dollar settlement, and he's willing to hurt Crystal to pursue his vendetta.
Again, Crystal stabbed Daye - buried a steak knife to the hilt. That is absolutely not in dispute. If that stabbing was not done in self-defense, she is guilty of a felony. Since it is a dangerous/risky felony, the fact the victim ultimately died means that if it wasn't self defense, it would be some level of manslaughter v. murder - which is where what Duke does becomes relevant.
Self-defense was the only NG, but Sid got Crystal to ignore that because it didn't advance his vendetta against Duke. It's just sad that Crystal is incapable of seeing how Sid is manipulating her and abusing her and using her for his own purposes. He had to get the PDR withdrawn so he could file his, which attacks Duke.
This case is about Crystal, not Duke - unfortunately Sid wants it to be about Duke.
December 29, 2015 at 7:25 AM
Seriously, this case is about duke killing Mr. Daye with malpractice and then controlling the corrupted in-justice and medical examiner system to cover-up and lie about that fact - since that is what happened as clearly documented by the medical records, autopsy records, the case proceedings, the trial, and this blog. If Ms. Mangum is guilty of murder by malpractice, than Duke is guilty of accessory to murder by malpractice, or maybe it is Duke that is guilty of murder by malpractice, and Ms. Mangum is guilty of accessory to the murder by malpractice but only if she didn't say something about the murderous malpractice and tried to do something about it ... which she did. So, actually, in 'real-life' (not some corrupted in-justice system, etc.), Duke is guilty of murder by malpractice if it was a murder, as well as other civil law violations in this case.
harr the hypocritical fabricator or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously again. My guess is kenny hissy fit, since he has been screeching this kind of screed for years.
Tinfoil- Here's the link to the NC criminal law statutes:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014
Please find the statute(s) regarding malpractice and let us know which ones they are.
December 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM
seriously, why don't you?
Anonymous at 1:39 ...
If Crystal was not acting in self-defense when she stabbed Daye (and the jury found she wasn't), then she's a felon, and illegally stabbed someone. That's what this case is about - not Duke. It was about whether or not the stabbing was justified/legal, and a jury found it was not - and despite all their cries of turncoat attorneys and the rest, other than saying they disagree with the jury, even Sid admits the Defense fought for self-defense - which was the only way to exonerate Crystal.
You are as big of an idiot as Sid and Kenny.
Tinfoil -- What?!? No luck finding anything about malpractice under NC criminal law? Why don't you try looking again.
Fake Kenny,
Watch out, the Cry-Bully will come and get you.
Tinfoil- Any luck finding those statutes yet?
I imagine if you asked - most people would agree it was likely malpractice, though without experts that would be hard to say conclusively, and the Roberts' report says it was a known complication for that procedure (which means sometimes shit happens, doesn't make it malpractice).
But, as has repeatedly been pointed out - even if it were malpractice since that is, by definition, not intentional (so the whack-job Tin-foil can stop screaming "murder by malpractice"), Mangum would still be liable. More than 1 person or entity can be responsible for a death - happens all the time. Crystal would be criminally liable, because her stabbing was not legally justified (the jury rejected self-defense), and that started the chain; Duke could be civilly liable because they made a mistake. They are both a proximate cause of the death - and thus both liable. It's not that complicated.
Anonymous said:
"But, as has repeatedly been pointed out - even if it were malpractice since that is, by definition, not intentional (so the whack-job Tin-foil can stop screaming "murder by malpractice"), Mangum would still be liable. More than 1 person or entity can be responsible for a death - happens all the time. Crystal would be criminally liable, because her stabbing was not legally justified (the jury rejected self-defense), and that started the chain; Duke could be civilly liable because they made a mistake. They are both a proximate cause of the death - and thus both liable. It's not that complicated."
It only becomes complicated (and implausible) when you try to manipulate the facts and the law of the case to argue that Mangum is not guilty.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
The mantra that Crystal is guilty of murder because of a Welch precedent was never challenged. There are expert witnesses that could counter the conclusion of Nicholls, endorsed by Roberts, that a probable post-operative infection was the diagnosis that exposed Daye to Medical Malpractice. If it was in fact a sequelae of his treatment for acute alcohol withdrawal and impending delirium tremens then there was no murder. No, the fact that Crystal's action sent a chronic alcoholic to hospital, is insufficient to invoke a Welch precedent ruling.
Kenny,
You failed to provide cases you identified that confirm your conclusion that the Welch precedent is inapplicable. Without providing cases that confirm your conclusion, you are only master debating. Master debating will not free Crystal.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
kenhyderal said...
"The mantra that Crystal is guilty of murder because of a Welch precedent was never challenged. There are expert witnesses that could counter the conclusion of Nicholls, endorsed by Roberts, that a probable post-operative infection was the diagnosis that exposed Daye to Medical Malpractice."
So produce one. Neither you(no medical training, no medical experience) not harr the hypocritical fabricator(minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved specialty board certification) qualify as an expert witness. Or maybe kilgo told you he has an anonymous Lacrosse player friend knows a physician who would qualify as an expert witness who told him that there was no reason to work up Reginald Daye for an intra abdominal infection.
"If it was in fact a sequelae of his treatment for acute alcohol withdrawal and impending delirium tremens then there was no murder."
Except, even if he were being treated for DTs, in this scenario there was still the possibility of an intra abdominal infection and a workup to rule out the infection was necessary. That you are incapable of recognizing this does not mean you made a meaningful argument.
"No, the fact that Crystal's action sent a chronic alcoholic to hospital, is insufficient to invoke a Welch precedent ruling."
It is not a fact that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Again, you do not have the medical expertise to diagnose anyone as a chronic alcoholic. Neither does harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical bord specialty certification.
Correction:
kenhyderal said...
"The mantra that Crystal is guilty of murder because of a Welch precedent was never challenged. There are expert witnesses that could counter the conclusion of Nicholls, endorsed by Roberts, that a probable post-operative infection was the diagnosis that exposed Daye to Medical Malpractice."
So produce one. Neither you(no medical training, no medical experience) not harr the hypocritical fabricator(minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved specialty board certification) qualify as an expert witness. Or maybe kilgo told you that his anonymous Lacrosse player friend knows a physician who would qualify as an expert witness who told him that there was no reason to work up Reginald Daye for an intra abdominal infection.
"If it was in fact a sequelae of his treatment for acute alcohol withdrawal and impending delirium tremens then there was no murder."
Except, even if he were being treated for DTs, in this scenario there was still the possibility of an intra abdominal infection and a workup to rule out the infection was necessary. That you are incapable of recognizing this does not mean you made a meaningful argument.
"No, the fact that Crystal's action sent a chronic alcoholic to hospital, is insufficient to invoke a Welch precedent ruling."
It is not a fact that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Again, you do not have the medical expertise to diagnose anyone as a chronic alcoholic. Neither does harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical bord specialty certification.
Kenny said:
"The mantra that Crystal is guilty of murder because of a Welch precedent was never challenged. There are expert witnesses that could counter the conclusion of Nicholls, endorsed by Roberts, that a probable post-operative infection was the diagnosis that exposed Daye to Medical Malpractice."
Who are the experts who could counter Nichol's and Robert's conclusions, or is this another one of your lies? Your lying does not help Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago.IL
Abe asks: Who are the experts who could counter Nichol's and Robert's conclusions, or is this another one of your lies? Your lying does not help Magnum.
You are being unfair to Kenny. Kenny is not lying; he is master debating. I expect that if he interviewed enough experts, Kenny would be able to find some who would agree to say what he wanted. Remember, as a master debater, Kenny is not required to provide evidence. He is able simply to state conclusions and require others to disprove them.
Kenny realizes that his master debating will not free Crystal. That is not his objective. He succeeds regularly in annoying other commenters on this blog.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
I knew the first time I saw Crystal Mangum there was no way any of the lacrosse player would have touched her.Even Bill Cosby wouldn't have raped Crystal.He liked white women too.Can't say I blame him.
Sid:
By your prediction, you have 365 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
It's going to go by fast, so you better get cracking.
Abe Froman
Chicago,IL
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT -- I JUST POSTED NEW CORRESPONDENCE!
I welcome comments related to the incident involving Representative Brockman.
As you were.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
By your prediction, you have 365 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
It's going to go by fast, so you better get cracking.
Abe Froman
Chicago,IL
Hey, Abe.
You should know that I'm no slacker. I've been at it nearly 24/7 during the past year with a few breaks thrown in for eating, sleeping, hygienic activities, and exercise. I'm out of the gates quickly with a newly posted letter, and work on a new sharlog which should include a lot of evidence and prosecution discovery.
I can't imagine it taking many months into 2016 before she's freed and exonerated. But thanks for the countdown anyway.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny said:
"The mantra that Crystal is guilty of murder because of a Welch precedent was never challenged. There are expert witnesses that could counter the conclusion of Nicholls, endorsed by Roberts, that a probable post-operative infection was the diagnosis that exposed Daye to Medical Malpractice."
Who are the experts who could counter Nichol's and Robert's conclusions, or is this another one of your lies? Your lying does not help Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago.IL
C'mon, Abe... Shirley you jest! Mangum's case is too political. Politicians stay away from Mangum's case because they want to get re-elected. Media-types stay away from the Mangum case because they want to continue receiving advertising revenue. Doctors and nurses stay away from Mangum because they want to remain employed, have hospital privileges, and keep licensed. It's really that simple. Doctors, nurses, and most healthcare professionals are capable of understanding the truth, however they value their livelihood over helping someone who has been demonized by the media.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Mangum's case is too political. Politicians stay away from Mangum's case because they want to get re-elected. Media-types stay away from the Mangum case because they want to continue receiving advertising revenue. Doctors and nurses stay away from Mangum because they want to remain employed, have hospital privileges, and keep licensed. It's really that simple. Doctors, nurses, and most healthcare professionals are capable of understanding the truth, however they value their livelihood over helping someone who has been demonized by the media."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I welcome comments related to the incident involving Representative Brockman."
In his description of how Reginald Daye died, harr the hypocritical fabricator again fabricates.
In his description of himself as a "retired physician", harr the hypocritical fabricator again omits the details of his career, that he is a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification and who spent most of his post medical school career not tending to the sick but to filing and losing a string of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I imagine if you asked - most people would agree it was likely malpractice, though without experts that would be hard to say conclusively, and the Roberts' report says it was a known complication for that procedure (which means sometimes shit happens, doesn't make it malpractice).
But, as has repeatedly been pointed out - even if it were malpractice since that is, by definition, not intentional (so the whack-job Tin-foil can stop screaming "murder by malpractice"), Mangum would still be liable. More than 1 person or entity can be responsible for a death - happens all the time. Crystal would be criminally liable, because her stabbing was not legally justified (the jury rejected self-defense), and that started the chain; Duke could be civilly liable because they made a mistake. They are both a proximate cause of the death - and thus both liable. It's not that complicated.
The fact remains that the stab wound was treated successfully with a prognosis for a full recovery. Prosecution failed to prove any complication from the stab wound or its surgery to account for Daye's brain death. Had Daye not been intubated in his esophagus, he would not have become brain dead and electively removed from life-support. Mangum and the stab wound she inflicted are not in any way liable for Daye's demise.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Hey, Abe.
I can't imagine it taking many months into 2016 before [crystal is] freed and exonerated. But thanks for the countdown anyway."
Here harr the hypocritical fabricator shows he is totally deluded.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Daye's family may well have reached a settlement with Duke - it's unknown, and not relevant.
Sid dismisses the self-defense defense (even though that was the only way to get a NG in this case). Sid has an axe to grind against Duke, because he wants a multi-million dollar settlement, and he's willing to hurt Crystal to pursue his vendetta.
Again, Crystal stabbed Daye - buried a steak knife to the hilt. That is absolutely not in dispute. If that stabbing was not done in self-defense, she is guilty of a felony. Since it is a dangerous/risky felony, the fact the victim ultimately died means that if it wasn't self defense, it would be some level of manslaughter v. murder - which is where what Duke does becomes relevant.
Self-defense was the only NG, but Sid got Crystal to ignore that because it didn't advance his vendetta against Duke. It's just sad that Crystal is incapable of seeing how Sid is manipulating her and abusing her and using her for his own purposes. He had to get the PDR withdrawn so he could file his, which attacks Duke.
This case is about Crystal, not Duke - unfortunately Sid wants it to be about Duke.
Actually, this case is about the manner of Daye's death. His death was accidental as opposed to homicidal. Daye, while still alive, albeit on life-support, was removed electively because he was considered to have irreversible brain-death and he subsequently died.
Did you, per chance, read the article in The News & Observer on December 30, 2015, titled "When are you dead? It may depend on which hospital makes the call." In a Syracuse, New York hospital Colleen Burns was wheeled into an operating room for organ retrieval after being in a long-term comatose state following a drug overdose. Neurologically no brain activity was detected in the 41-year-old woman, however, with the bright lights of the operating room, she opened her eyes and regained consciousness.
Who knows what would've happened to Daye had Duke University Hospital staff not been so eager to disconnect him from life support.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The fact remains that the stab wound was treated successfully with a prognosis for a full recovery."
Here harr, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training ans who never achieved medical specialty board certification shows he is incompetent to judge matters medical. Reginald Daye suffered a stab wound at the hands of crystal which lacerated his colon. There was an unavoidable delay of hours between the infliction of the stab wound and the treatment, which means for a matter of hours his abdominal cavity was exposed to contamination from an unprepared colon. That set him up for an intrabdominal infection. The fact that the laceration was repaired at surgery did not eliminate the risk of infection. Even after elective colon surgery, in which the colon is preppped pre operatively to reduce the risk of infection, in a number of cases an intra abdominal infection will develop. Reginald Daye was not operated on electively and the surgeons had no opportunity to prep his colon.
"Prosecution failed to prove any complication from the stab wound or its surgery to account for Daye's brain death."
Here harr the hypocritical fabricator ignorantly fabricates again. The prosecution did prove that Reginald Daye did die of complications of the stab wound inflicted by crystal(which, in spite of crystal's claim of self defense, crystal could not prove she acted in self defense. harr the hypocritical fabricator is simply too ignorant of medical situations to be able to determine what caused Reginald Daye's death.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, this case is about the manner of Daye's death. His death was accidental as opposed to homicidal."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. Reginald Daye's death was homicide. Again, harr the hypocritical fabricator, in spite of being a medical school graduate, is unqualified by his minimal training, by his minimal experience, by his lack of residency training, by his lack of medical board certification, is incompetent to comment meaningfully on any medical situation.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
ANOTHER IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
I hope that everyone, including those with illogical opinions adverse to mine, has a great 2016... That it is full of good health and much happiness.
For you Die-hard Mangum haters, all I can do is suggest that you arrange now for counseling to help you get by when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... which I anticipate to be in the not too distant future, but definitely within the year. You might also consider purchasing a crying towel if you do not already have one on hand.
I look forward to another year of mentally jousting with many of you who are not Mangum proponents.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Did you, per chance, read the article in The News & Observer on December 30, 2015, titled "When are you dead? It may depend on which hospital makes the call." In a Syracuse, New York hospital Colleen Burns was wheeled into an operating room for organ retrieval after being in a long-term comatose state following a drug overdose. Neurologically no brain activity was detected in the 41-year-old woman, however, with the bright lights of the operating room, she opened her eyes and regained consciousness.
Who knows what would've happened to Daye had Duke University Hospital staff not been so eager to disconnect him from life support"
Again harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical shcool graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, shows how incompetent he is. In most of those scenarios in which a patient is clinically brain dead, the patient does not wake up and recover.
Nifong Supporter said...
"For you Die-hard Mangum haters, all I can do is suggest that you arrange now for counseling to help you get by when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... which I anticipate to be in the not too distant future, but definitely within the year."
harr the ignorant hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again.
http://abc11.com/news/troopers-rip-state-rep-who-said-stop-was-race-related/1122200/
"Brockman is heard on the video telling two troopers that he was angry and suggesting he wouldn't have been cited if he were a white lawmaker.
'I think if I was a white representative that you guys would've been like 'ok, sorry sir,'' Brockman was heard saying."
harr the ignorant hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again. The real story seems to be that Brockman played the race card after he was pulled over. It seems similar to harr the hypocritical fabricator and his encounter with Duke. Harr was violating Duke's non solicitation policy, was told to stop, and picked a fight with a security guard, and then claimed Duke had targeted him because he was a nifong supporter.
So far as harr the hypocritical fabricator is concerned, I believe he fabricates when he describes his experiences being profiled.
http://www.wxii12.com/news/nc-rep-cecil-brockmans-traffic-stop/36962358
Dash Cam video of Cecil Brockman picking a fight with the NC highway patrol after troopers stopped him for not wearing his seatbelt. It shows Brockman trying to intimidate the troopers. harr the hypocritical fabricator has again fabricated.
December 31, 2015 at 7:37 AM
Evil duke troll:
Well if most people would agree that it was malpractice, do you think that all of these 'most people' are "whack jobs" too? I said if it was murder. Mr. Daye died because of the deadly malpractice, so, by logical reasoning, since the state charged and covicted for murder, it was murder by malpractice - and it was DUKE who committed it.
Dr. Harr,
I am contemplating pulling a Rosa Parks on ya, and quitting your blog because of the on-going cyberbullying which you seem unwilling to do anything about. What are your thoughts on that matter. I mean, at least one evil duke troll thinks 'most people' who would agree that it was malpractice are 'whack jobs' and doesn't hesitate to project it onto the one person who states what 'most people' think, which I find hateful and cyberbullying and just another example of the nonstop cyberbullying seen on this blog.
Oh, look! It's the Cry-Bully again!
Cry bully cry,
You make Ken Edwards sigh.
He's old enough to know better.
So cry bully cry!
Sidney said,
"when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... which I anticipate to be in the not too distant future, but definitely within the year."
But Sidney, you've been saying this every year since 2011. Why should 2016 be any different?
Anonymous January 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM
harr the hypocritical fabricator or kenny hissy fit or perhaps both publishing anonymously again. This time it's probably harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Anonymous said...
"Well if most people would agree that it was malpractice, do you think that all of these 'most people' are "whack jobs" too? I said if it was murder. Mr. Daye died because of the deadly malpractice, so, by logical reasoning, since the state charged and covicted for murder, it was murder by malpractice - and it was DUKE who committed it."
This sounds like harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Whether or not something is malpractice is a legal determination. If someone alleges malpractice against a physician or against a health care institution, the individual has to prove it in court according to certain legal rules and standards. A case for malpractice is not made by asking incompetent people like harr the hypocritical fabricator who is but a minimally trained minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, or no medical training, no medical experience kenny hissy fit.
Whether or not most people regard it as malpractice is irrelevant.
January 1, 2016 at 12:42 PM
about as irrelevant as AG Cooper declaring the 3 guys 'innocent' maybe, or about as relevant as victimizing an entire nation to provoke the 'black' vote perhaps, or maybe, about as relevant as the possibility of boycotting Duke because they went along with the cover-ups and lies about the malpractice to begin with probably
Anonymous said...
"Dr. Harr,
I am contemplating pulling a Rosa Parks on ya, and quitting your blog because of the on-going cyberbullying which you seem unwilling to do anything about. What are your thoughts on that matter. I mean, at least one evil duke troll thinks 'most people' who would agree that it was malpractice are 'whack jobs"
First, harr the hypocritical fabricator, who is but a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, and no medical training, no medical esperience kenny hissy fit do not add up to most people.
Again, whether or not most people believe it is malpractice is irrelevant. Neither of those unworthies would be regarded by any court as competent or capable of sproving mlpractice happened. Malpractice has to be proven in court.
January 1, 2016 at 12:51 PM
why would duke and the medical examiner's system and the in-justice system lie and cover-up the fact of how Mr. Daye actually died if it wasn't malpractice and if it was so irrelevant, eh? right, because it is not irrelevant, and it is malpractice, and Duke is known for their inability to take responsibility and accountability for the things they do wrong or that harms others ... preferring to victimize more instead of actually being the top rate institution they claim to be but are not because they refuse to take responsibility and accountability and have a penchant for victimizing all.
January 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM
evil duke troll it g... hatemonger blogmonger ... perhaps you need to take your own cyberbullying obssessive command and watch your manners
blah
Dr. Harr,
I recently watched this movie about Alabama and Rosa Parks and the bus boycott by blacks. In it the N... word was used a lot, and black people were made to say Sir and Maam to the whites, and ... well ... lots of really awful stuff.
So, I can see where you have a thing about the n... word, but, I mean, isn't g...'s cyberbullying obsession about manners - i mean the way g... followed me around the internet and demanded probably a 1000 times for no obvious reason that i watch my manners about the same thing?
Anyway, i've decided not to say sir or maam any more either - even though you hear it all the time here and i thought it was good manners so i regularly said it ... not any more ... no siree bob, not i - no more maam or sir ... boycotting that too!
harr the hypocritical fabricator or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously again, probably harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Anonymous said...
"January 1, 2016 at 12:51 PM
why would duke and the medical examiner's system and the in-justice system lie and cover-up the fact of how Mr. Daye actually died if it wasn't malpractice and if it was so irrelevant, eh?"
No one lied about how Reginald Daye died, except for harr the hypocritial fabricator and kenny hissy fit.
How horrible, the cyberbully is coming after me. Is there some place I can hide?
AG Cooper declared the lacrosse players innocent because no rape ever took place and murderer Magnum will never be exonerated due to the fact she is actually guilty.
Tinfoil,
Posting comments you disagree with, criticizing you or even making fun of you on this website is not cyberbullying. You need to act like a grown-up or go away.
Oh, don't ask CryBully to go away! He's so amusing!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
http://www.wxii12.com/news/nc-rep-cecil-brockmans-traffic-stop/36962358
Dash Cam video of Cecil Brockman picking a fight with the NC highway patrol after troopers stopped him for not wearing his seatbelt. It shows Brockman trying to intimidate the troopers. harr the hypocritical fabricator has again fabricated.
WRONG-O!! The patrol officer picked a fight with Cecil Brockman by tearing after him on a rain-slicked street like a bat out of Hades simply for not wearing his seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt is not a driving hazard... as is, say, texting or other distractive behavior. For the officer to request backup for a seat belt violation is absurd. To me, the video didn't show an unreasonable amount of time for responding to the blue lights and siren... it wasn't like he drove on for five or ten minutes. It seemed to me like Brockman pulled over at a place that would not impede traffic and not endanger the trooper.
Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
I am contemplating pulling a Rosa Parks on ya, and quitting your blog because of the on-going cyberbullying which you seem unwilling to do anything about. What are your thoughts on that matter. I mean, at least one evil duke troll thinks 'most people' who would agree that it was malpractice are 'whack jobs' and doesn't hesitate to project it onto the one person who states what 'most people' think, which I find hateful and cyberbullying and just another example of the nonstop cyberbullying seen on this blog.
Again, where I have trouble with your argument is that the disparaging remarks by the cyberbullyist are cast at a broad group of nameless and faceless individuals. It would be different if these remarks were made to an indentified individual... such as is the case with me.
I would not recommend quitting this blog site under any circumstances as it is the only source of truth regarding Mangum and other cases that the mainstream media has tried to manipulate for its own agenda.
guiowen said...
Sidney said,
"when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... which I anticipate to be in the not too distant future, but definitely within the year."
But Sidney, you've been saying this every year since 2011. Why should 2016 be any different?
gui, mon ami,
When a boxer of superior talent goes into a match, he does not, as a rule, knock his opponent out in the first round. For the first few rounds he peppers his target with repeated jabs to the jaw and body... softening him up for the big fall. In the middle or late rounds, after the opponent has been sufficiently softened by the beating he received thus far and appears to be vulnerable, the superior boxer goes in with the roundhouse hay-makers to flatten his opponent and win a knockout.
Such is the case with Mangum's case. I believe the repeated "jabs" over the years have softened my target (the State and media-types)... which I expect to tag with a lethal combination that would make Ali proud. In the past, I believed my opponent was ripe for the take-down, but was mistaken by his resilience. I am now of the belief that he will fall in 2016... early in 2016.
Hope the analogy helped.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
I recently watched this movie about Alabama and Rosa Parks and the bus boycott by blacks. In it the N... word was used a lot, and black people were made to say Sir and Maam to the whites, and ... well ... lots of really awful stuff.
So, I can see where you have a thing about the n... word, but, I mean, isn't g...'s cyberbullying obsession about manners - i mean the way g... followed me around the internet and demanded probably a 1000 times for no obvious reason that i watch my manners about the same thing?
Anyway, i've decided not to say sir or maam any more either - even though you hear it all the time here and i thought it was good manners so i regularly said it ... not any more ... no siree bob, not i - no more maam or sir ... boycotting that too!
I agree with you on that. I used to think it polite to say Sir and Ma'am, and I guess it still is, to an extent, but I tend not to use the terms as much as I had in the past.
Nifong Supporter said...
"WRONG-O!! The patrol officer picked a fight with Cecil Brockman by tearing after him on a rain-slicked street like a bat out of Hades simply for not wearing his seat belt."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. The dash cam video shows the officer stopping Representative Brockman, who got p---ed that he was stopped and who then accused the officer of profiling him.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I would not recommend quitting this blog site under any circumstances as it is the only source of truth regarding Mangum and other cases that the mainstream media has tried to manipulate for its own agenda."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. On his blog he has never published the truth. He tells lies aboutthe truth about the Due rape hoax. He tells lies about his encounter with Duke. He lies about the Reginald Daye murder. He lies about Representative Brockton.
Nifong Supporter said...
"When a boxer of superior talent goes into a match, he does not, as a rule, knock his opponent out in the first round. For the first few rounds he peppers his target with repeated jabs to the jaw and body... softening him up for the big fall. In the middle or late rounds, after the opponent has been sufficiently softened by the beating he received thus far and appears to be vulnerable, the superior boxer goes in with the roundhouse hay-makers to flatten his opponent and win a knockout."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. He compares himself to a boxer of superior talent. Again, harr is but a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who never was acepted int oresidency training, who never achieved medical specialty board s=certification and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing a series of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. That kind of cv does not at all indicate superior talent. It indicates only megalomaniacal delusion on the part of harr the hypocritical fabricator.
"Such is the case with Mangum's case. I believe the repeated "jabs" over the years have softened my target (the State and media-types)... which I expect to tag with a lethal combination that would make Ali proud. In the past, I believed my opponent was ripe for the take-down, but was mistaken by his resilience. I am now of the belief that he will fall in 2016... early in 2016."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again. His jabs were intended as knockout blows and have all missed. harr the hypoccritical fabricator is trying to comouflage his failures.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I agree with you on that. I used to think it polite to say Sir and Ma'am, and I guess it still is, to an extent, but I tend not to use the terms as much as I had in the past."
But harr the hypocritical fabricator doew not think it is "impolite" to falsely acuse innocent men of raping crystal, to falsely accuse the Durham Police of setting the fire in Milton Walker's apartment in order to charge crystal with arson, to try to get a convicted felony murderer a pass by trying to pass off his deliberate murders as self defense.
Nifong Supporter said...
"To me, the video didn't show an unreasonable amount of time for responding to the blue lights and siren."
To you, Shan Carter chasing down and shooting Tyrone Baker with an illegally possessed hand gun after Tyrone Baker was fleeing, was self defense. And his shooting 8 year old Demetrius Greene with the same illegally possessed hand gun while he was chasing down Tyrone Baker was just an unfortunate accident.
You have a lot of difficulty distinguishing reality from your delusions.
Sid:
You have 364 days left to exonerate and free Mangum. You better get cracking.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
January 2, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Um yeah Dr. Harr, but they cast all their hatred for you, Ms. Mangum, Mr. Nifong, etc. etc. onto others, like me, and I for one find it criminal and hateful. If someone tells you that a 1000 times, do you finally get it on say 101st time, or ... never? If anyone else agreed with what you are advocating or proving, if they visited this blog, they would see what the evil duke trolls are doing and never speak up probably to avoid the same type of criminal abuse. It is their intention after-all.
Thing is - if you keep repeating the same wrong and stupid stuff 1000 times, you have to expect to be corrected. Sid is wrong on many things - he claims this is an "intellectual sparring match" but it's not - he won't learn. His latest letters still mention felony murder, even though, whatever he may have originally thought, it's clear was not involved in this trial.
If idiots could learn, they wouldn't be idiots I guess. At least you, anonymous at 7:11, are just an idiot. Sid is an abuser.
January 2, 2016 at 7:33 AM
and you are an abusive cyberbullying evil duke troll
... see
i learned that!
not so much of an idiot afterall i'd say
harr the hypocritical fabricator or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again, this time probably harr the hypocritical fabricator.
No, it's just CryBully TinFoil.
Cry Bully states: not so much of an idiot afterall i'd say
Your ability to make ad hominem attacks provides little evidence as to whether you are or are not an idiot.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 364 days left to exonerate and free Mangum. You better get cracking.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe, as we speak, I am preparing for what I believe will be the climatic battle... the field in play being the Little Bighorn, and I'm Crazy Horse.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"To me, the video didn't show an unreasonable amount of time for responding to the blue lights and siren."
To you, Shan Carter chasing down and shooting Tyrone Baker with an illegally possessed hand gun after Tyrone Baker was fleeing, was self defense. And his shooting 8 year old Demetrius Greene with the same illegally possessed hand gun while he was chasing down Tyrone Baker was just an unfortunate accident.
You have a lot of difficulty distinguishing reality from your delusions.
Whether or not the gun Carter used was illegal or legal it saved his life.
The truth of the matter is that the shooting of Baker was self-defense, as the drug lord publicly made clear his intentions of killing those responsible for the burglary of his apartment... and unfortunately, the death of young Demetrius Greene was an accident.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Whether or not the gun Carter used was illegal or legal it saved his life."
Said gun was also used to take the life of an innocent 8 year old boy. You omit tat what placed Shan Carter's life in danger was that he robbed Tyrone Baker. No robbery, no threat to Shan Carter.
"The truth of the matter is that the shooting of Baker was self-defense, as the drug lord publicly made clear his intentions of killing those responsible for the burglary of his apartment... and unfortunately, the death of young Demetrius Greene was an accident."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. It was not self defense. Shan Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment. After Shan Carter opened fire, Tyrone Baker fled. Shan Carter then chased him and continued firing at him. That Shan Carter caused the confrontation and then pursued a fleeing Tyroe Baker that took it out of the realm of self defense and into the realm of murder. The death of Demetrius Greene was felony murder. It never would have hapened had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment.
As I said before, harr the hypocritical fabricator has a real problem disytinguishing between reality and his delusions.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Abe, as we speak, I am preparing for what I believe will be the climatic battle... the field in play being the Little Bighorn, and I'm Crazy Horse."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. He is a totally incompetent incapable flyweight futilely promising again to deliver a heavyweight knockout blow.
Again I say,harr the hypocritical fabricator has a lot of difficulty distinguishing between reality and his delusions.
Sid:
You have 363 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid states: I'm preparing for what I believe will be the climatic battle... and I'm Crazy...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Abe, as we speak, I am preparing for what I believe will be the climatic battle... the field in play being the Little Bighorn, and I'm Crazy Horse."
No,, you are George Custer, deluding yourself that you are brilliant and then charging headlong into a well armed, vastly superior opponent.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The truth of the matter is that the shooting of Baker was self-defense, as the drug lord publicly made clear his intentions of killing those responsible for the burglary of his apartment..."
So the question is, would Shan Carter, who was already a convicted felon, have been in any danger had he refrained from committing another felony by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment? Or are you saying Shan Carter was simply minding his own business when he committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment. Or are you saying that Shan Carter had some kind of right to break into an apartment and rob it? You claim you are capable of providing elucidation. So do so.
"and unfortunately, the death of young Demetrius Greene was an accident."
No it was a murder which would never have happened had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment.
Anonymous 9:08 AM and 4:20 AM:
I am not sure that I follow your line of argument. I hope that you can provide an explanation.
Unquestionably, the sequence of events began when Carter and others broke into Baker's apartment and stole a large amount of money Baker had accumulated through his drug dealing activities.
This is where your argument is unclear. Are you suggesting that because Carter was the initial aggressor several days earlier, Baker was justified in using whatever force he thought appropriate when he approached Carter?
In other words, Baker was acting in self-defense when he sucker punched Carter's colleague because Carter had burglarized him several days earlier. Furthermore, because Carter was the initial aggressor (albeit several days earlier), Carter was not permitted to claim self-defense under any circumstances. (Ignore for the purposes of this question that, as a convicted felon, Carter was not permitted to possess a gun and there are additional restrictions on the ability of a felon to claim self-defense using an illegal gun.) I am asking the broader question--for purposes of self-defense, does the "aggressor" remain fixed throughout a sequence of events or can the aggressor change throughout the sequence as circumstances change?
I thought that the aggressor can change throughout a sequence as the circumstances change.
In this case, for example, as I noted earlier, Carter unquestionably started the sequence with his burglary. However, the burglary did not put Baker at risk because he was not there. Despite his understandable pique, Baker was not permitted as a result of that earlier burglary to approach Carter and initiate a violent confrontation with him. When he did so, he became the aggressor in that confrontation. Ordinarily, I would have thought that Carter would have the right to defend himself in the initial confrontation with the force he reasonably thought necessary to prevent his death (although as a convicted felon, I understand that he loses the right to self-defense with a gun). He made this claim for the initial confrontation the day of the shooting, and the jury rejected it due to the facts presented (a conclusion with which I agree).
However, once Baker retreated, even if his initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene.
Do I understand your argument correctly--that once Carter committed the burglary, he would never be able to claim self-defense in any confrontation with Baker because he was the initial aggressor? In other words, once an aggressor, always an aggressor--even after the passage of time?
Thanks.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Do I understand your argument correctly--that once Carter committed the burglary, he would never be able to claim self-defense in any confrontation with Baker because he was the initial aggressor?"
You understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation.
If B attacks A, then A fights him off, and B fleas, A does not have the right to chase down B and use potentially deadly force against B. By his own testimony, Shan Carter fired on Tyrone Baker and Tyrone Baker fled. Shan Carter chased him and continued firing at him with a .357 Magnum, which is a deadly weapon. It was not self defense. It's that simple.
How is my paragraph beginning with "However, once Baker retreated..." different than your last paragraph?
Your conclusion related to the final shots "It was not self defense. It's that simple." is the same as my conclusion: "However, once Baker retreated, even if his initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene."
I suggest that you apologize for your smug response to me, suggesting that I fail to understand the law when it is clear that you failed to read my comment. We reached the EXACT same conclusion on that point.
My question about self-defense related to who was the initial aggressor in the initial confrontation on the day that Carter murdered Baker, not the end when Carter chased after a retreating Baker. As my conclusion cited above indicates, I found that question clear-cut and that Carter could not possibly have acted in self-defense at that point. On that point, we agree, even if you do not understand that.
Your summary "If B attacks A, then A fights him off, and B fleas [sic], A does not have the right to chase down B and use potentially deadly force against B." appears to cast Baker (and not Carter) in the role of aggressor during the initial confrontation. As a result, the burglary appears to have little importance in determining who was the aggressor for the confrontation on the day of the murder. I reach that conclusion as follows:
"B attacks A" occurred when Cater (B) burglarized Baker (A).
"B flees" occurred when Carter (B) left the apartment. (Because Carter A was not home, there was no need to "fight him off.")
"A does not have the right to chase down B" indicates that you now agree that Carter (A) did not have the right several days after the burglary to violently confront Carter (B). Earlier, I read your comment as suggesting that because Carter had burglarized Baker, Baker had a perpetual right to confront Carter, even violently if he thought necessary.
I now understand that you agree with me.
Otherwise, a ridiculous outcome could result. Consider the following hypothetical. Your burglarize my home and steal some valuable possessions (unlike Baker, I earned my possessions legally). I find out that you are the burglar and pledge to kill you. I see you on the street and come at you with a drawn gun (which I am legally permitted to carry). Your earlier comments suggested that because you provoked the confrontation when your burglarized me, I have a perpetual claim of self-defense and that you could not ever legally defend yourself against me and claim self-defense. I find that conclusion ridiculous and must have misunderstood you.
Sorry.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"I suggest that you apologize for your smug response to me, suggesting that I fail to understand the law when it is clear that you failed to read my comment."
No
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"I read your comment as suggesting that because Carter had burglarized Baker, Baker had a perpetual right to confront Carter, even violently if he thought necessary."
You read it wrong.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Your earlier comments suggested that because you provoked the confrontation when your burglarized me, I have a perpetual claim of self-defense and that you could not ever legally defend yourself against me and claim self-defense. I find that conclusion ridiculous and must have misunderstood you."
I suggested no such thing.
I wrote: "I read your comment as suggesting that because Carter had burglarized Baker, Baker had a perpetual right to confront Carter, even violently if he thought necessary."
You responded: "You read it wrong."
I must have misunderstood the following comment you made: "Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment." Can you please explain what you meant by that sentence? I read it as a statement that Carter was still the aggressor at that point because of his actions several days earlier.
When Baker confronted him violently, did Carter have the right at that point to defend himself if he reasonably believed that his life was then in danger?
I am sorry that I misunderstood you. However, you didn't have to be so snippy when you were criticizing me for reaching the same conclusion as you.
Anonymous said...
"I must have misunderstood the following comment you made: 'Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment." Can you please explain what you meant by that sentence?"
I meant, and I say again, "Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment."
"I read it as a statement that Carter was still the aggressor at that point because of his actions several days earlier."
You read it wrong.
Here it is again, "Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment."
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"When Baker confronted him violently, did Carter have the right at that point to defend himself if he reasonably believed that his life was then in danger?"
The issue was and is, would Shan Carter have had reason to believe his life was in danger had he not broken into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment?
No.
Meaning that Shan Carter provoked the confrontation which led to Tyrone Baker's death at Shan Carter's hands, which eliminates self defense.
In your 5:06 PM comment, I replaced Baker's and Carter's names with the pronouns "you" and "I".
"When I confronted you violently, did you have the right at that point to defend yourself if you reasonably believed that your life was then in danger?"
The issue was and is, would you have had reason to believe your life was in danger had you not broken into and robbed my apartment?
No.
Meaning that you provoked the confrontation which led to my death at your hands, which eliminates self defense.
This conflicts with your 4:33 PM comment. You now seem to be suggesting once that you would be guilty of murder if you defended yourself if I had attacked you in retaliation for your having robbed me.
Anonymous said...
"When I confronted you violently, did you have the right at that point to defend yourself if you reasonably believed that your life was then in danger?"
Let's get back to what I actually said:
"The issue was and is, would Shan Carter have had reason to believe his life was in danger had he not broken into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment?
No.
Meaning that Shan Carter provoked the confrontation which led to Tyrone Baker's death at Shan Carter's hands, which eliminates self defense."
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"This conflicts with your 4:33 PM comment. You now seem to be suggesting once that you would be guilty of murder if you defended yourself if I had attacked you in retaliation for your having robbed me."
No I wasn't. Those are your words.
The issue does not involve me or you. It involved Shan Carter and Tyrone Baker. There would have been no violent confrontation between Shan Carter and Tyrone Baker had Shan Carter not broken into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment. That means, Shan Carter's killing of Tyrone Baker was not self defense.
Anonymous 6:10 PM wrote: "The issue does not involve me or you. It involved Shan Carter and Tyrone Baker."
Now you are acting like Sidney. He also refuses to consider hypotheticals. I raised a violent confrontation in which you killed me when I attacked you as a hypothetical with many of the same facts as the actual confrontation between Carter and Baker. The primary difference was that neither of us were convicted felons prior to the confrontation. When I use the phrase "hypothetical" I do not suggest that it actually occurred. I use a hypothetical only to initiate a discussion about points of law.
I find it interesting that in the two situations (the hypothetical confrontation between you and me and the actual confrontation between Baker and Carter) despite the similarity in facts, you reach different conclusions. Carter provoked the confrontation with Baker because he burglarized him, but you did not provoke the hypothetical confrontation with me even though in the hypothetical, you burglarized me.
I do not understand your different conclusions other than to suggest that, like Sidney, you are a hypocrite
Anonymous said...
"Now you are acting like Sidney."
No I'm not. I am not trying to get convicted murderers passes for their crimes.
"He also refuses to consider hypotheticals."
Hypotheticals are just hypotheticals, nothing more.
"I raised a violent confrontation in which you killed me when I attacked you as a hypothetical with many of the same facts as the actual confrontation between Carter and Baker."
You raised a HYPOTHETICAL violent confrontation, one which never happened.
"The primary difference was that neither of us were convicted felons prior to the confrontation. When I use the phrase "hypothetical" I do not suggest that it actually occurred. I use a hypothetical only to initiate a discussion about points of law."
The only point of law was whether or not Shan Carter acted in self defense. He did not.
"I find it interesting that in the two situations (the hypothetical confrontation between you and me and the actual confrontation between Baker and Carter) despite the similarity in facts, you reach different conclusions. Carter provoked the confrontation with Baker because he burglarized him, but you did not provoke the hypothetical confrontation with me even though in the hypothetical, you burglarized me."
What similarity of facts? Since your situation was a Hypothetical situation, there were no facts, only speculations.
"I do not understand your different conclusions"
That's your problem.
"other than to suggest that, like Sidney, you are a hypocrite."
You do more than suggest. You state. And you are wrong.
Sid:
You have just 362 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous 3:04 AM:
You have many similarities with Sidney.
I recognize that Sidney insists that Crystal should be freed (because he believes she is innocent) and you believe she was rightfully convicted. Sidney insists that Shan Carter was unfairly convicted and you believe his conviction was justified. I actually agree with your conclusions on both cases, but disagree only with some of your analysis.
However, both you and Sidney appear to reach conclusions first, and then examine the facts and the law. Your judgment in general is better than his. You (you are Dr. Anonymous, aren't you; you have the same writing style) tend to disagree with everything Sidney says and then figure out why. Because Sidney has remarkably abysmal judgment, this technique has served you quite well, making you correct almost all of the time (Dr. A's refusal to admit that Daye had been esophageally intubated was the most serious error).
In addition, both you and Sidney resist considering whether a conclusion or even some analysis is flawed. In this case, you criticized me sharply in an area in which we were in complete agreement, but you were so intent on criticizing me that you failed to understand that.
Finally, both you and Sidney fail to understand the importance of hypotheticals in focusing attention on points of law. In addition to the study of case law--decisions based on actual cases--the study of law also involves hypotheticals. Just because a hypothetical did not actually occur, it's use can help us better understand certain principal. These principals are supposed to provide a consistent framework. Similar situations are supposed to have similar results. A hypothetical and permit the assumption of similar circumstances and permit differences to be added one at a time. Neither you nor Sidney understand that.
Anonymous said...
"However, both you and Sidney appear to reach conclusions first, and then examine the facts and the law.
You are completely and totally wrong.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"In this case, you criticized me sharply in an area in which we were in complete agreement, but you were so intent on criticizing me that you failed to understand that."
Wrong again.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Finally, both you and Sidney fail to understand the importance of hypotheticals in focusing attention on points of law."
Hypothetical cases are just hypothetical cases. Legal cases, criminal and civilm, are decided on facts, not hypotheses.
"In addition to the study of case law--decisions based on actual cases--the study of law also involves hypotheticals."
Cite some examples.
Anonymous said:
"Similar situations are supposed to have similar results."
Not necessarily.
Both the Duke Lacrosse team members and Michael Jermaine Burch were accused of rping women in Durham. The Duke defendants were subjected tom all sorts of hateful actions. Michael Jermaine Burch was not.
The Duke Lacrsse players were falsely accused of rape. As harr the hypocritical hypocrite has pointed out they spent no tome in prison.They were exonerated. Brian Banks was falsely accused of rape. He spent time in prison before being exonerated.
"A hypothetical and permit the assumption of similar circumstances and permit differences to be added one at a time."
How does this show you have understanding? Are you saying a hypothetical situation permits a jury to make assumptions of fact? I do not think so. In a court of law, for something to be presumed fact, there has to be evidence to support it
"Neither you nor Sidney understand that."
I understand your arguments are unsound.
Anonymous at 11:06 AM wrote: In this case, for example, as I noted earlier, Carter unquestionably started the sequence with his burglary. However, the burglary did not put Baker at risk because he was not there. Despite his understandable pique, Baker was not permitted as a result of that earlier burglary to approach Carter and initiate a violent confrontation with him. When he did so, he became the aggressor in that confrontation. Ordinarily, I would have thought that Carter would have the right to defend himself in the initial confrontation with the force he reasonably thought necessary to prevent his death (although as a convicted felon, I understand that he loses the right to self-defense with a gun). He made this claim for the initial confrontation the day of the shooting, and the jury rejected it due to the facts presented (a conclusion with which I agree).
However, once Baker retreated, even if his [Carter's] initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Sidney is Custer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU
Anonymous 12:47 PM asks for examples of hypotheticals used in teaching law.
How about the hypothetical A Lawyer noted earlier as common in law schools: the person who was slugged by an assailant such that he fell into the road where he was run over by a drunk driver.
Walt and A Lawyer, can you provide some background? I have argued that a hypothetical example can be used in explaining legal principals. Anonymous 12:47 PM, etc. appears to confuse the discussion of legal concepts on this board with courts of law that decide actual cases based on actual facts and appears to believe that hypothetical cases ( where one can construct the assumptions to focus on a particular question) have no merit. My understanding is that the use of hypotheticals is quite common for the reasons I outlined. Moreover, the answers to a hypothetical may vary as they introduce additional assumptions, which may result in different answers. Although I am clearly not a lawyer, I would expect that hypotheticals would be a valuable teaching technique; Anonymous 12:47PM, etc. appears to disagree. Can either of you help?
Anonymous 1:18 PM asks: "How does this show you have understanding? Are you saying a hypothetical situation permits a jury to make assumptions of fact?"
How do hypotheticals show understanding? In the way I have previously explained. Because hypotheticals permit those engaged in the discussion to set the assumed facts of the case as they wish, a hypothetical can set up a discussion in a way that the principal being discussed receives all of the focus, avoiding complications that may be present in a real life situation.
Am I saying that a hypothetical per,it's a jury to make assu,prions of fact. No, of course not. This is a ridiculous question. You are acting like Sidney again, raising straw man arguments.
Anonymous said...
"How about the hypothetical A Lawyer noted earlier as common in law schools: the person who was slugged by an assailant such that he fell into the road where he was run over by a drunk driver."
That hypothetical case was made in connection to the Reginald Daye murder. crystal was alleging self defense. Said hypothetical case would have had no bearing on the Reginald Daye murder. crystal would have had to prove she acted in self defense(she was putting forward an affirmative defense, in which case she had the burden of proof). what might have happened in this hypothetical case would have been relevant to whether or not crystal acted in self defense.
Very poor example.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous 12:47 PM, etc. appears to confuse the discussion of legal concepts on this board with courts of law that decide actual cases based on actual facts".
No I don't. I am saying that legal cases are decided on the basis of facts. Hypothetical cases are not based on facts.
I would say you are the one confused.
Anonymous said...
"My understanding is that the use of hypotheticals is quite common for the reasons I outlined. Moreover, the answers to a hypothetical may vary as they introduce additional assumptions, which may result in different answers. Although I am clearly not a lawyer, I would expect that hypotheticals would be a valuable teaching technique".
Teaching techniques belong in Law School, not in a trial.
When a case goes to the Jury, the Judge instructs the Jury on the Law. He tells the Jury what the law states and what the ramifications are. He may use a specific case to illustrate a point of law. I doubt that introducing a totally hypothetical case into a trial would be proper. Again, the outcome of the trial is base on the actual, real world facts, not speculation over some hypothetical scenario.
Hypotheticals are a staple of American law school pedagogy. In contracts law, this one is common: If the actual case involved a contract between Ben and Alice, in which Alice agreed in writing to fix Ben's roof, and Ben agreed to pay Alice $100, Alice did not perform, and Ben had to pay $200 to another roofer, we might get hypos like the following:
What if the agreement had been oral instead of in writing?
What if the contract price had been $300?
What if Alice had been a minor?
What if the contract had not specified a price?
What if Alice did the job, but the roof still leaked?
These hypotheticals allow the professor to explain the legal doctrine, or better yet have the students explain the legal doctrine, explore the moral underpinnings of legal rules and explore the consequences of legal rules. That said, hypotheticals are nothing but a teaching tool. They are not legal decisions per se. Some people learn that way, others do not. If you find a hypothetical to be helpful, great, if not, you should probably ignore posts that attempt to use them.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Am I saying that a hypothetical per,it's(sic) a jury to make assu,prions(sic) of fact. No, of course not."
Yes you are.
"This is a ridiculous question. You are acting like Sidney again, raising straw man arguments."
Ad hominem attacs are an admission you are losing the argument.
I am not confused. I am attempting to use a hypothetical to discuss on this board a legal principal as it relates to the hypothetical. You refuse to do so. After we discussed the legal principal at it applies to the hypothetical, I would then discuss if the legal principal we discussed had any relevance to the Carter case.
I have never said that legal cases are not decided (or supposed to be decided) on the basis of facts. Moreover, I have acknowledged explicitly that hypotheticals are not based on real facts, but only assumed facts. You either are, like Sidney, relying on straw man arguments or, again like Sidney, you have no idea what I am actually saying and your only reaction is to criticize.
Your reaction to the hypothetical I raised is absolutely moronic and demonstrates either that you have no idea what hypotheticals are used or that you simply wish to be disagreeable. You recognize that the hypothetical of the person slugged and run over had no bearing on the Daye murder. On the other hand, you believe that my hypothetical of me burglarizing you and you killing we when I attacked you in retaliation has a direct bearing on the Carter conviction. Are,you kidding? Are you really that dense? That reaction is just like Sidney.
I note that Walt agreed with my earlier comment, one to which you had reacted negatively, charging that I knew nothing. It appears that Walt disagrees with your assessment.
Straw man arguments are an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tool. I si,ply note that both you and Sidney rely on them.
Anonymous 3:20 states the obvious: "Teaching techniques belong in Law School, not in a trial.
I reply with the obvious: the discussion on this board is not a trial. The discussion on this board is certainly more analogous to the teaching in law school than as an argument in court.
I have never suggested otherwise. If you thought that was my intent, I apologize. Please provide the comment in which you thought I was using the hypothetical as an argument in a court case.i will rephrase to make my purpose clearer.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I am not confused. I am attempting to use a hypothetical to discuss on this board a legal principal as it relates to the hypothetical. You refuse to do so. After we discussed the legal principal at it applies to the hypothetical, I would then discuss if the legal principal we discussed had any relevance to the Carter case.
I have never said that legal cases are not decided (or supposed to be decided) on the basis of facts. Moreover, I have acknowledged explicitly that hypotheticals are not based on real facts, but only assumed facts. You either are, like Sidney, relying on straw man arguments or, again like Sidney, you have no idea what I am actually saying and your only reaction is to criticize.
Your reaction to the hypothetical I raised is absolutely moronic and demonstrates either that you have no idea what hypotheticals are used or that you simply wish to be disagreeable. You recognize that the hypothetical of the person slugged and run over had no bearing on the Daye murder. On the other hand, you believe that my hypothetical of me burglarizing you and you killing we when I attacked you in retaliation has a direct bearing on the Carter conviction. Are,you kidding? Are you really that dense? That reaction is just like Sidney.
I note that Walt agreed with my earlier comment, one to which you had reacted negatively, charging that I knew nothing. It appears that Walt disagrees with your assessment.
Again, all your ad hominem comments are a manifestationof your decompensation.You can not tolerate people whodisagree withyou. In that respect you are in fact emulatingharr the hypocritical fabricator and kenny hissy fit.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"the discussion on this board is not a trial. The discussion on this board is certainly more analogous to the teaching in law school than as an argument in court."
Regarding Shan Carter, the discussion is whether or not he gets a pass for murder by alleging self defense. The jury decided, no he doesn't. To agreat extent, it IS about a trial.
Anonymous said...
"Straw man arguments are an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tool. I si,ply(sic) note that both you and Sidney rely on them."
So why do you use straw man arguments, in addition to ad hominem attacjks. You do set up straw men.
Anonymous said...
"I note that Walt agreed with my earlier comment, one to which you had reacted negatively, charging that I knew nothing. It appears that Walt disagrees with your assessment."
Walt said, "[Hypothetical arguments} are not legal decisions per se. Some people learn that way, others do not. If you find a hypothetical to be helpful, great, if not, you should probably ignore posts that attempt to use them."
That does not exactly sound like agreement.
Walt said: "Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!"
That does sound like agreement.
The quote from Walt you cited described PRCISELY how I indended my hypothetical to be used--as a tool for learning.You should take Walt's advice. You do not learn that way and should ignore the posts.
You probably should not criticize what you do not understand.
Anonymous states: "When a case goes to the Jury, the Judge instructs the Jury on the Law. He tells the Jury what the law states and what the ramifications are. He may use a specific case to illustrate a point of law. I doubt that introducing a totally hypothetical case into a trial would be proper. Again, the outcome of the trial is base on the actual, real world facts, not speculation over some hypothetical scenario."
Why are you telling us this? This is obvious and no one has suggested otherwise.
Anonymous said...
"Walt said: 'Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!'
That does sound like agreement."
Walt DID NOT say that in his comment of January 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, which comment referred to the use of hypotheticals.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous states: 'When a case goes to the Jury, the Judge instructs the Jury on the Law. He tells the Jury what the law states and what the ramifications are. He may use a specific case to illustrate a point of law. I doubt that introducing a totally hypothetical case into a trial would be proper. Again, the outcome of the trial is base on the actual, real world facts, not speculation over some hypothetical scenario.'
Why are you telling us this? This is obvious and no one has suggested otherwise."
"You did.
He said that in relation to another comment I made on 1/3 at 11:06 am. For reasons I do not understand, you criticized that comment. I introduced the hypothetical after that to try to clarify my position. You misunderstood me.
Do you agree or disagree with the paragraphs Walt quoted? If so, why did you criticize that comment earlier?
Anonymous 5:29,
When did I allegedly suggest that? Please cite the specific comment in which I made that ridiculous claim.
Ubes is having one of his bigger liestopper crank meltdowns today.
Spin Ubes Spin
Quack
Quack
Quack
...When a case goes to the Jury, the Judge instructs the Jury on the Law. He tells the Jury what the law states...
So far so good.
... and what the ramifications are. He may use a specific case to illustrate a point of law.
Nope. Jury instructions are very specific statements of the law, worked out by the pattern jury commission and based on the case law from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The instructions speak for themselves and the judge does not add nor detract from them.
For example NC Pattern Jury Instruction 101.5 says: "Members of the jury: All of the evidence has been presented. It is now your duty to decide from this evidence what the facts are. You must then apply the law which I am about to give you to those facts. It is absolutely necessary that you understand and apply the law as I give it to you, and not as you think it is, or as you might like it to be. This is important because justice requires that everyone tried for the same crime be treated in the same way and have the same law applied."
There is no deviation from that instruction and no interpretation can be given by the court.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Whether or not the gun Carter used was illegal or legal it saved his life."
Said gun was also used to take the life of an innocent 8 year old boy. You omit tat what placed Shan Carter's life in danger was that he robbed Tyrone Baker. No robbery, no threat to Shan Carter.
"The truth of the matter is that the shooting of Baker was self-defense, as the drug lord publicly made clear his intentions of killing those responsible for the burglary of his apartment... and unfortunately, the death of young Demetrius Greene was an accident."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. It was not self defense. Shan Carter caused the confrontation by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment. After Shan Carter opened fire, Tyrone Baker fled. Shan Carter then chased him and continued firing at him. That Shan Carter caused the confrontation and then pursued a fleeing Tyroe Baker that took it out of the realm of self defense and into the realm of murder. The death of Demetrius Greene was felony murder. It never would have hapened had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment.
As I said before, harr the hypocritical fabricator has a real problem disytinguishing between reality and his delusions.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying... If a burglar steals personal property from you, you have the right to kill the burglar and he/she has no right to defend him/herself. Did I get your position correct?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 363 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Thanks for reminding me. I made many great strides today. The beginning of the end is near.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"The truth of the matter is that the shooting of Baker was self-defense, as the drug lord publicly made clear his intentions of killing those responsible for the burglary of his apartment..."
So the question is, would Shan Carter, who was already a convicted felon, have been in any danger had he refrained from committing another felony by breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment? Or are you saying Shan Carter was simply minding his own business when he committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment. Or are you saying that Shan Carter had some kind of right to break into an apartment and rob it? You claim you are capable of providing elucidation. So do so.
"and unfortunately, the death of young Demetrius Greene was an accident."
No it was a murder which would never have happened had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment.
I no more condone burglary than I do murder. Shan Carter clearly was in the wrong to steal from Baker's apartment... but in our so-called civilized society, the punishment for burglary is not death. What Baker should have done is gone to the police and told them that Carter broke into his apartment and stole his drug money.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous 9:08 AM and 4:20 AM:
I am not sure that I follow your line of argument. I hope that you can provide an explanation.
Unquestionably, the sequence of events began when Carter and others broke into Baker's apartment and stole a large amount of money Baker had accumulated through his drug dealing activities.
This is where your argument is unclear. Are you suggesting that because Carter was the initial aggressor several days earlier, Baker was justified in using whatever force he thought appropriate when he approached Carter?
In other words, Baker was acting in self-defense when he sucker punched Carter's colleague because Carter had burglarized him several days earlier. Furthermore, because Carter was the initial aggressor (albeit several days earlier), Carter was not permitted to claim self-defense under any circumstances. (Ignore for the purposes of this question that, as a convicted felon, Carter was not permitted to possess a gun and there are additional restrictions on the ability of a felon to claim self-defense using an illegal gun.) I am asking the broader question--for purposes of self-defense, does the "aggressor" remain fixed throughout a sequence of events or can the aggressor change throughout the sequence as circumstances change?
I thought that the aggressor can change throughout a sequence as the circumstances change.
In this case, for example, as I noted earlier, Carter unquestionably started the sequence with his burglary. However, the burglary did not put Baker at risk because he was not there. Despite his understandable pique, Baker was not permitted as a result of that earlier burglary to approach Carter and initiate a violent confrontation with him. When he did so, he became the aggressor in that confrontation. Ordinarily, I would have thought that Carter would have the right to defend himself in the initial confrontation with the force he reasonably thought necessary to prevent his death (although as a convicted felon, I understand that he loses the right to self-defense with a gun). He made this claim for the initial confrontation the day of the shooting, and the jury rejected it due to the facts presented (a conclusion with which I agree).
However, once Baker retreated, even if his initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene.
Do I understand your argument correctly--that once Carter committed the burglary, he would never be able to claim self-defense in any confrontation with Baker because he was the initial aggressor? In other words, once an aggressor, always an aggressor--even after the passage of time?
Thanks.
You are correct and bring up several new and pertinent points.
One correction, however. The time difference between the burglary of Baker's apartment and when Baker accosted Carter was not a matter of days, but rather a matter of months... the burglary, to my recollection being in November and shooting incident in which Baker died being in the following February. (After Mangum is freed and exonerated, I'm going to have to brush up on the facts of Carter's case.)
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Do I understand your argument correctly--that once Carter committed the burglary, he would never be able to claim self-defense in any confrontation with Baker because he was the initial aggressor?"
You understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation.
If B attacks A, then A fights him off, and B fleas, A does not have the right to chase down B and use potentially deadly force against B. By his own testimony, Shan Carter fired on Tyrone Baker and Tyrone Baker fled. Shan Carter chased him and continued firing at him with a .357 Magnum, which is a deadly weapon. It was not self defense. It's that simple.
Your analogy misrepresents the truth and is therefore misleading. Keep in mind that Carter burglarized Baker's apartment in November. It wasn't until the following February that Baker attacked Carter, who at that time was minding his own business (albeit selling drugs) and not provoking Baker. Besides, word on the street was that Baker had threatened to kill whoever stole his money, and Carter was aware of the danger posed by Baker.
Regarding Baker's flight after being shot, Carter did run a short distance in the general direction as Baker, but only for the purpose of preventing Baker from using the corner of a building as shelter from which to return fire. Carter shot in the general direction of the fleeing Baker not with the intent of hitting him, but rather to motivate him to keep running. Also, forensics proves that none of the bullets fired while Baker was fleeing struck him.
Post a Comment